rei, See 
Pac Pape taaeet 
= 


age 
Gass 


wae. 
= a Souke 
BS 


oes 


~~ 


x 


x . Se x. 
mcs S 7 - So 
: moe 


eee 


= — x 
cet BAS 
teers mee 


eee: 
‘4 
a 


roe. 
s 


crs; 





aoe 























THE LIBRARY 
OF 
THE UNIVERSITY 
OF CALIFORNIA 
LOS ANGELES 
































Fi a <5 &s ad aa Fe 
“3 ' . A a 
. “¢ i val % 
; A aa : 
\ = . ‘ : 
e # i : 
4 oe 7. 
ya ; 
, . = 
».. 
a 4 
saat 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
/ in 2006 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 
ogre: ¥ nd 7 { 
a ae ; 
ee: r ; 
‘ ~ 5 a: ’ : val 
P f i ’ * : 
an’ ‘ 
é . ¢ : 
\ . * ~ 
2 = 
a “ a ‘es 
be « 7 ' | 
’ ad " : ” 2 #6 
oe ‘ r ' a . ; - 


://archive.org/details/textbookofchurchOlgiesiala 
’ . . fod : . iF * 


r -"s . 6 
a . ; _ > . - . 


* 


| Wie Hala. oft 


“POF 
A- TEXT-BOOK 
th 


SL Eh 


CHURCH HISTORY. 


BY DR. JOHN CG. L, GIESELER. 


Sranslated from the fourth Wevised German Woiltion, 


BY SAMUEL DAVIDSON, LL.D., 


PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE AND ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY IN THE 
LANCASHIRE INDEPENDENT COLLEGE. 


A NEW AMERICAN EDITION, REVISED AND EDITED 


BY HENRY B. SMITH, 


PROFESSOR IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK. 


VOL. L A.D. 1-726. 


NEW YORK: 
HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS, 


PEARL STREET, FRANKLIN SQUARE. 


1857. 





~ 


hundred and fifty-five, by 
Harper & Broraers, 
. 
Ms ti (llerk’s Offios of the Distribt Court of the Southern Distelet of 
yee ae New York. 
; - ‘ 
bp - 


Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousend eight 


a ‘ 
: 
4 & 
; . 
*? 
F 
. F: 7% : ; 
% , Pa 
. “A * 
: * 
ie : i 
ne 
‘ 
$i. } 
= 
a 
>. 
» 'F 
. 











} able as a guide to any who would examine the original sources. 


INTRODUCTORY NOTE. . 





r 


In this new edition of Gieseler’s Church History a thorough 
revision of the translation has been made, with additional refer- 
ences to the English and later German works. The alterations 
are numerous, giving more exactly the sense of the original, and 
correcting frequent mistranslations. 

The entire history to the epoch of the Reformation will be com- 
prised in three volumes, following the divisions of the original 
German. The subsequent history, to 1848, can probably be 
- embraced in two additional volumes. At the time of Gieseler’s 
decease, his work was completed to the year 1648, in three vol- 
umes, subdivided into six parts, each of which was. separately 
issued. The history is to be continued under the editorial su- 
pervision of his colleague, Dr. E. R. Redepenning. The volume 
for the period from 1814 to 1848 is just published; we have ta- 
ken from it, with slight abridgments, an account of Gieseler’s life 
and writings. The narrative of the ecclesiastical events of this 
period was written out by Gieseler himself; unlike the previous 
volumes, it is an extended history, with comparatively few notes. 
The intervening volume, for the period from the Peace of West- 
phalia, 1648 to 1814, is promised for the next year. Thus the — 
work will form a complete and authentic history of the Christian 
Church, to A.D. 1848, composed with abundant. and careful learn- 
ing, especially adapted to the wants of students, and indispens- 
The aid it gives in the critical investigation of the original ate 
thorities is its chief merit, apart from its use as a text-book for 
classes in Theological Seminaries. It is cold, but cautious; it is 
more rational than sympathetic; it has not the warmth of Nean- 
der’s incomparable work, but it is more complete ; ; it has not the 


iv INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 


vividness of Hase’s delineations, but it is more full, and gives 
copious extracts from the sources, such as can nowhere else be 
found. 

The first three volumes of the present edition correspond with 
volumes one and two of the original. The first extends to the 
year 726. “The second will be from 726 to 1305; the third from 
1305 to 1517. The whole period, 726 to 1517, was published by 
Gieseler as his second® volume, in four subdivisions. ‘The third 
volume of the German, in two parts, will be the fourth in this 
translation ; anda fifth volume will probably embrace the fourth 
and fifth of the original. 

In the German edition, both parts of the first volume, and also 
the first two divisions of the second volume (to 1305), are in their 
fourth edition ; the third division of the second volume has reached 
a second edition; its fourth division, and the whole of the third 
volume (1517 to 1648), are still in their first edition; and the 
publisher states that a new one is not to be expected, as a suffi- 
ciently large number of copies was struck off to meet the demand. 

The first English translation of Gieseler’s work was well ex- 
ecuted from the third edition of the earlier volumes by Francis 
Cunningham, and published in Philadelphia, in 1836, in three 
volumes, extending to the Reformation. The version published 
in Clark’s Library, from which this edition is in part reprinted, is 
by different translators: the first and second volumes are by Dr. 
Davidson; the third and fourth by Rev. J. W. Hull. The Edin- 
burgh edition is inconveniently arranged; the first volume breaks 
off in the middle of the second period; the second, in the midst 
of the third period ; and the fourth, about two hundred pages short 
of the Reformation. This defect is remedied in the present edi- 
tion, and a translation added of the portion needed to complete 
the history to the Reformation. This will be followed, as soon 
as practicable, by a translation of the additional volumes. 

The least satisfactory portion of Dr. Gieseler’s work is un- 
doubtedly that of the first century. It is disproportionately con- 
cise; and the bias of the author is more marked. But here, too, 
the sources for correcting his opinions are near at hand to all our 
students. 

New Yorn, Sept. 1, 1855. 


THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF GIESELER. 





Boru the father and grandfather of Dr. Gieseler were clergy- 
men. His grandfather, John Arend Gieseler, born at Minden in 
1726, was.a pastor at Lahde, and afterward at Hartum, in the 
principality of Minden. He received his theological education at 
Halle. The family records describe him as wholly in sympathy 
with the practical Christian tendencies reintroduced by Franke 
and Spener, though not devoted to the peculiarities of ‘ pietism ;” 
as a true adherent of the symbols of Lutheranism; as a very 
earnest, active, and orderly man, yet cheerful, and of great. hilar- 
ity with the right sort of people. These characteristics reappear 
in the grandson. The grandmother, of the family of Haccius, 
shared her husband’s piety and love of order. 

These qualities also distinguished their son, George Christopher 
Frederick Gieseler, born in 1770, who was a preacher in Petersha- 
gen, near Minden, and afterward in Werther, not far from Biele- 
feld.. He was a man of a marked intellectual character. Though 
deaf from his fourteenth year, so that in the University he was 
often obliged to transcribe from his neighbor’s manuscript, and 
though thus almost deprived in later life of social intercourse, he 
yet attained the most thorough culture and self-discipline. His 
infirmity seemed to forbid his entering the clerical profession ; 
but, as if born for a minister, he would be that, and nothing else. 
In his eleventh and twelfth years he held meetings on Sunday af- 
ternoons, in a garden-house of his father, which were attended 
in large numbers: from the village, and not without good results. 
When only thirteen, he took for a time the place of a sick teacher 
in the chapel at Holtzhausen, conducting the singing and cate- 
chetical exercise. He, too, was educated at the University of _ 
Halle, and taught in several private families, until he became a 


vi THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF GIESELER. 


pastor at Petershagen in 1790. He was devoted to his congrega- 
- tion, yet ever earnest in his studies. He published several works, 
but more remain in manuscript, upon Theology, or rather Theoso- 
phy, the Revelation of John, and Education. With much that is 
original, these writings contain also one-sided and erratic views. 

_ John Charles Louis Gieseler was born at Petershagen the 
third. of March, 1793; the oldest of ten children. When four 
years old, death deprived him of the faithful and loving care of 
his mother, whose maiden name was Berger, a woman of great 
practical sagacity. His earliest instruction was from his’ grand- 
father, who taught him in an easy, sportive way, to be a good 
reader in his fourth year. His father’s peculiarities contributed 
to the formation of that independence of character which in early 
life distinguished him, and in later years came to his aid in so 
many difficult circumstances. In his tenth year he was sent to 
the Latin school of the Orphan-house at Halle. Here he soon 
enjoyed the counsels and care of Niemeyer, whose friendship in 
after years never deserted him. He aided him in his studies, and 
after their completion promoted him to the post of teacher in the 
Orphan School. He had hardly been a year in this position, 
when, in October, 1813, *he followed the call of his father-land, be- 
came a volunteer in the war for Germany’s freedom, and was pres-— 
ent at the raising of the siege of Magdeburg. After the peace in 
1815, he resumed his office as teacher ; two years later he received 
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy: he became co-rector of the 
gymnasium at Minden in the same year, and in 1818 director of the 
gymnasium at Cleve. At Michaelmas, in 1819, he was appointed 
‘professor ordinarus” of Theology in the newly-established Fred- 
erick-William’s University of Bonn, having already received from 
that University, on the third of April of the same year, the doc- 
torate of divinity through Augusti’s influence. 

This rapid promotion he owed to his ‘* Critical Essay upon the 
Origin and earliest History of the written Gospels,” published in 
1818. ‘This exposition set aside the hypothesis of one written 
original Gospel as the common source of the synoptical Gospels, 
and confirmed the positions laid down by Herder, Lessing, and oth- 
ers, which are at the basis of the whole recent criticism of the Gos- 
pels. This important work of Gieseler was soon out of print; yet 


THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF GIESELER. vil 


he could never decide upon issuing a second edition. He shunned 
that confusion of hypotheses, many of them wholly groundless, 
which afterward sprung up on this subject, and also thought that 
the time had not come for new and definitive results. 

His thorough philological culture is proved by his treatises 
published in the second volume of Rosemiiller’s ‘« Repertorium,” 
which helped to enrich the science of the grammar of the New 
Testament, then in its infancy. His Essay upon the ‘* Nazarenes 
and the Ebionites,” in Stéudlin and Tzschirner’s “* Archiv” (Bd. 
iv. St. 2), showed his peculiar talent in disentangling confused 
problems. From this time forth he dedicated his powers almost 
exclusively to his loved studies in church history. Neandér’s - 
** Genetic Development of the Gnostic Systems” was the occasion 
of his penetrating review (in the ‘‘ Hallische Lit. Zeitung, 1823), 
which cast much new light upon this chaos. The next year he 
commenced the publication of his ‘“ Text-book of Church His- 
tory.” With Liicke, he also edited the “‘ Zeitschrift fiir gebildete 
Christen,” four numbers being issued in the years 1823, 4. 

At that time the yet youthful University of the Rhine enjoyed 
a fresh and free life; Protestants and Catholics were not rent asun- 
der; Gratz and Seber still taught without hinderance their inde- 
pendent exegesis and theology, assailed only by Hermes ; they, 
with Ritter, the Roman Catholic church historian, were in con- 
stant intercourse with Gieseler; all were of one heart and one 
soul; robust powers were working peaceably together; the Uni- 
versity was in the perfect blossom of its spring-time. In his fam- 
ily Gieseler was blessed in a high degree, attached with incompar- 
able truth and devotion to his early loved and early lost wife, 
Henrietta, of the Feist family in Halle. The blessing of many 
children was theirs, and with these came many a care. But trust- 
ing in God, relying upon his own power of labor, untiringly active, 
most conscientious in all his work, not troubled by little things, 
in the midst of his cares he kept his heart open to every joy. 

For twelve and a half years he stood in this post of special in- 
' fluence asa teacher of church history, and enjoying the confidence 
of his colleagues, who had just committed to him the rectorship - 
of the University, when the Georgia Augusta called him to her 
service ; and certainly, in no other University could he have 


a THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF GIESELER. 


been so wholly in his place as at Géttingen. In its fundament- 
al character, as the nurse of the empirical and historical sciences, 
and in the manifold practical services to which it called him, it 
corresponded entirely with his own bias. Mere learned investiga- 
tion would not have filled up the measure of his activity. It is dif- 
ficult to say which in him was predominant, his capacity for learn- 
ing, or his practical sagacity and inward fitness to organize and gov- 
ern; both, without doubt, went hand in hand. As he was in life, 
so was he in science, clear, definite, foreseeing, conscientious ; in 
_ expression concise, at times laconic, in all things a man of one piece 
—aman in every sense of the word. This was felt as soon as you 
came in contact with him and put confidence in him. The Uni- 
versity frequently committed to him, and in times of trial almost 
always to him alone, the dignity of pro-rector; with hardly an in- 
terruption, he was a member of one or several academical courts. 
His counsel must be sought upon propositions for the revisal of 
the University statutes, or in making new regulations. He was a_ 
constant member of the Library Commission. The city corpora- 
tion chose him for its speaker, an office, however, which he after- 
ward declined. He was curator of the Gottingen Orphan-house, 
and had the administration of many other charitable foundations, 
especially the scholarships. The Gottingen Academy of Sciences, 
of which he was a member, committed to him the direction of the 
Wedemeyer prizes. In union with Liicke, he directed the Theo- 
logical Ephora. But the Orphan-house was the special joy of his 
heart. With few exceptions, he was there every day, and hence 
knew exactly the disposition, conduct, and faults of each child, 
had for every one friendly words and counsel, and kept the pupils in 
his eye long after they had left the institution. They, in return, 
were attached to him, and manifestly eager to give him pleasure ; 
only in a very few cases did he fail of success in his noble efforts 
for the rescue of the abandoned, undertaken with so bold a faith. 

He gave much time to the lodge of the Order of Free-masons, 
and undoubtedly knew why he did this. In his last days he was 
violently assailed on this account, in a way which detracts as lit- 
tle from his good name as from the prosperity of the order. 

‘The interests of his country were ever dear to his heart. The 
_ last volume of his church history, embracing the period from 


THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF GIESELER. ix 
1814 to 1848, shows in many passages what his wishes were. 
His judgment upon the revolutionary movements of 1848 runs 
through the whole narrative, in which is also seen the calm hope 
with ‘which he looked to the future in the midst of the storms 
that robbed so many of their self-possession. 

In the affairs of the Church, as well as of the State, he wired 
to see a constant and ever judicious advance; he would not have 
any of the threads severed which bind together the new and the 
old. - Hence he declared against the so-called ‘* Constituent Syn- 
ods,” projected if 1848; and these, in fact, would only have done 
injury, had they been, as he conceived them to be, courts sitting 
in judgment upon what was henceforth to be received as the doc- 
trines of the Church. But such a tendency might have been 
easily avoided ; and when we think how much has been lost by 
nearly forty years of neglect, and the difficulty of its restoration, 
we can only desire that efforts for the building up of our Protest- 
ant Church should not again be undervalued; there may at least 
be progress in the ecclesiastical order and arrangement of the 
individual churches, so that, when there is greater clearness in — 
doctrine, we may find the foundations ready for the future struc- . 
ture. 

The question whether Gieseler was a rationalist, was answered 
in the negative, immediately after his death, by a Theologian 
of high standing, his colleague, Dr. Dorner ;* and he certainly 
was never what we now most commonly understand by that 
word. From the beginning to the end of his literary career, he 
held immovably to the truth of justification through faith alone, 
the fundamental idea of the Protestant system, understanding by 
this, the free personal reception of the divine truth and grace that 
come through the mediation of Christ, and are manifested in Him. 
He did not put the knowledge given by human reason above the 
divine truth given us in Christ ; he acknowledged him only to be 
a Christian who saw in Christ the sum of all the highest truth, 
never to be surpassed by any one here below. But when, on the 
other hand, any one detracted from the right and obligation of hu- 
man reason to appropriate, examine, and grasp this truth, to free 


* Dorner, “ Abwehr der hengstenbergscher Angriffe auf Gieseler und Lucke.” Got- 
tingen, 1854, 


x THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF GIESELER. 


it from the letter and receive it as spirit and truth, he became a 
bold and strong champion for this right, which no one ever under- 
valued without punishment; for reason is that light in us which 
can not become darkness, without plunging the whole man into 
darkness (Matth. vi. 22. 23; Luke, xi. 34,:35). In this sense 
_ Gieseler was a rationalist, and had in full measure the claim to be 
honored with that appellation by those who so readily give it to 
all who hold to clear and logical thinking, and to a’wise separa- 
tion between what is scientifically certain and all arbitrary fan- 
cies. He was ever averse to what some love {® call profundity 
of doctrine, to that empty speculation which is either ignorant of 
or overthrows the empirical basis on which it should rest, and 
which runs a tilt against all logic without respect; he laughed in 
a quiet way at one and another who, without the capacity, consid- 
ered themselves to be speculative theologians. Every philosoph- 
ical position had for him value only in the degree of its real cer- 
tainty ; it was one of his prime convictions, that in theology no- 
thing is now more important than the difficult, yet not impossible 
’ sundering of the spheres of faith and knowledge (aiotu¢ and yvGorc), 
of that which is the object of faith, and that which is but a human 
elaboration of the materials, necessarily changing with the progress 
of time, and always developing itself with many a fluctuation. 
His whole treatment of church history rests upon this distinc- 
tion. His sole aim was to exhibit the historical developments as 
they were: he combined in one view whatever was internally con- 
nected ; he made the agencies and counter-agencies apparent, and 
pointed out the aim and tendencies of events; but he held him- 
self aloof from the construction of arbitrary schemes and divi- 
sions, and from all merely subjective judgments. Starting from 
the position to which the investigations had already advanced, he 
penetrated to the problems under the guidance of previous leaders, 
and had a singular gift of quickly finding the way that led to the 
goal, without taking any fruitless step. It might be said that 
the intellectual traits of his Westphalian father-land—where is 
ever found so much unperverted practical sense, quickly seizing 
upon the right point—were his own in the highest perfection in 
his scientific explorations. To the outward form he assigned a 
subordinate value, as well in his own writings as in his critical 


THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF GIESELER. > xt 


investigations. He was sagacious in conjecturing the right words 
of original documents ; many such emendations of high value are 
due to him. Perhaps, however, in the question of the genuineness 
of this or that work, he allowed too little influence to its external 
form—its diction. 

The plan and arrangement of his church history are not one 
symmetrical whole, or, rather, a change in the original plan was 
made with the second volume. At first intended to be in three 
volumes of about the same size, the work in the second was so 
extended, that it lost in some measure its original destination as 
a guide in the University lectures. The disproportion was to be 
made up by a more concise history of the period from the Peace 
of Westphalia, 1648, to the year 1814. But who laments this 
enlargement of the work?» In the very form which the author 
gave it, it has become the mine from which is drawn so much 
learning in church history ; without it a mass of our later outlines 
of church history would, doubtless, not have appeared, or at least 
would not have offered so rich materials. 

In another place will be found a designation of the more sa- 
lient parts of this church history.*. In the history of the ancient 
church Gieseler’s assiduity and preference were specially devoted 
to the Greek Theology. Our acquaintance with it has been ma- 
terially enlarged by his Programmes. upon the opinions of the 
‘‘ Alexandrian Clement and of Origen as to the Body of the Lord,” 
upon the pseudepigraphic ‘‘ Vision of Isaiah,” upon the doctrines 
of the ‘“* Monophysites,” as well as by his edition of the ‘ His- 
tory of the Manichees” by Petrus Siculus, and of the “Panoply” of 
Euthymius Zygadenus (Tit. 23). In the medieval times he en- 
tered into the most thorough and successful examination of the 

sources of the history of the Cathari, of the Waldenses, of the re- 
forming parties and tendencies before the Reformation, of the cultus, 
and even of many portions of political history, so far as involved 
in that of the Papacy. But the crown of his labors in church his- 
tory is the second division of the third volume (in the German), 
which exhibits the doctrinal development in the period of the Ref- 
ormation to the Peace of Westphalia. We there find in the most | 


* Inthe ‘ Protestant. Kirchenzeiting fur das evangelische Deutschland,” Jahrg. i. 1854, 
No. 30. : 


xii THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF GIESELER. 


compressed expression, in many points exhausting all the sources, 
rich instruction upon the mutual relations of the two great brancli- 
es of the Reformation, the Swiss and the German, upon the growth 
of Luther’s views, upon the clerical office and the shaping of the 
Protestant church government. 

Gieseler also wrote upon ecclesiastical matters of immediate 
interest. During the controversy of the Prussian State with the 
Archbishop of Cologne, he published a work, enumerating the con- 
cessions which each party must make to re-establish permanent 
peace. He gave these counsels under the name of Irenaeus. He 
retained the same name in another pamphlet, in which he ex- 
posed the wondrous perverseness of the times, as seen in those 
who, in their zeal for so-called *‘ confessional truth,” insisted upon 
it that even their ecclesiastical opponents should be equally zeal- 
ous for their own confessions; as when, for example, a Luther- 
an maintained that Calvinists or Catholics. must hold stiffly to the 
distinguishing doctrines of their own communions, while he at 
the same time rejected them himself as_soul-destroying poison. 
Under his own name he published his acute investigations upon 
the ‘*Lehnin Prophecy,” whose warning words seem still to an- 
nounce to Prussia impending misfortunes in the perilous position 
in which that great state is now entangled. 

Gieseler also took the liveliest interest in the neighboring Dutch 
and French Churches. In 1840 he introduced to the German ~ 
public a work on the ‘Disturbances in the Dutch Reformed 
Church,” whose author did not wish to be named; and in 1848, 
a still larger work, the ‘‘ History of the Protestant CRarch in 
France, from 1787 to 1846.” His last literary labor was a dis- 
criminating review of the Essays of Chastel and Schmidt, to 
which the French Academy of Moral. Sciences awarded prizes, 
upon the “Influence of Christianity on the Social State of the 
Roman Empire,” a subject which also involves the question of the 
restorative means offered by Christianity for the social oppres- 
sions and perils of our own times. 

This question was one which he examined in the most various 
aspects. He was a man with a clear eye and an open heart for all 
who are straitened and in distress: science did not take him away 
from life, it was rather a means of his better preparation for the 


THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF GIESELER. xiii 


most various and useful practical service. From manifold expe- 
rience Gieseler had become acquainted with the life and the rela- 
tions of the laboring classes, the difficulties@nd deprivations with 
which so many are now contending, and not through their own 
fault; his strong and manly sense of right made him sympathize 
with all human needs, even those of the guilty. He first called 
into life in Gottingen a society for the aid of dismissed convicts; 
he wrote the statutes for the large funds of the ** Von Hugo Sti- 
pends,” which were under his direction as long as he lived; and 
so wisely did he administer them, that they can now be com- 
pletely and permanently applied to many a beneficent object. 
There have probably never lived many men who have rendered 
more efficient aid than he, or in a more unassuming, sympathiz- 
ing, and obliging way. . 

He possessed in a high degree the faculty of order and practi- 
eal organization, and was wise in the direction of entangled affairs. 
He seemed born to take the lead. In the critical state of the Uni- 
versity fifteen years ago, he showed his discretion and firmness 
to the full satisfaction of all who were able to understand without 
prejudice the actual state of the case. Gieseler was also willing 
to rule, but, we must add, he was without any trace of lordli- 
ness; he gave his reasons, he convinced, and if at any time out- 
voted, he seemed to question again for a moment his own opinion, 
which, however, he seldom changed, even when he did not refer to 
it anew. He gave his counsel only when asked; he helped and 
cared for many a one before they came to him. 

He was a very faithful friend. He did not lightly withdraw his 
confidence from any one to whom he ever gave it. 

He never seemed proud of the numerous honors which were be- 
stowed upon him during his life. Far from all vanity, he hada no- 
ble, manly self-respect ; he felt his own worth without being dis- 
tinctly conscious of it. He stood firm for the right good cause, not 
troubled by the sacrifices it might cost. He took the most lively 

part in the struggle for the maintenance of the Union (between the 
Reformed and Lutheran Churches), and rejoiced with all his: heart 
in the new light that seemed to break in upon the darkness before 
his departure. He felt assured that in the kingdom of the Lord new 
and fair days of prosperity would come, though they he delayed. 


xiv THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF GIESELER. 


Faithful to the welfare of the Church and of his country, and 
ministering with love to the necessities of others, he was also 
visited with many a@are in his own house. After the death of 
his first wife in the year 1831, which soon followed his transfer- 
ence to Géttingen, he found compensation for a loss he ever, de- 
plored, in his second marriage with a relative of the deceased, 
Amelia Villaret, whom he chose as his companion and the guard- 
ian of his children. This marriage, too, was unusually fruitful 
in children. Care for their education was added to the necessity 
of providing for his other sons and daughters, already grown up. 
But to the last day of his life he had constant experience of the 
truth of Him who has said to his house, My eyes shall be open 
upon it both night and day. 

On his dying bed he saw all his sons and danghters gathered 
around him, with the exception of two, who could not come for 
the distance, and took his last farewell of them, comforted by that 
firm trust in God which was the leading trait of his character. 
Until that time sound in soul and body as are few, retaining a 
vigorous manly form of youthful freshness even to his sixty-third 
year, he sank only by slow degrees under the violence of the ab- 
dominal disease by which he was suddenly attacked. His vigor- 
ous body resisted long the pangs of the assault, till its powers 
were exhausted, and a still and peaceful decease brought to its 
lose his active life on the eighth of July, 1854, in the earliest 
dawn of morning. ‘Three days later he was interred. Both the 
city and the University equally felt his loss. The long funeral 
retinue showed that a place was vacant which another would not 
soon fill with equal power and honor. 

The name of Gieseler will not be forgotten in the history of 
Gottingen, in science, or in the Church. Whoever knew him as 
he was, preserves his memory thankfully and faithfully, as a cost- 
ly treasure among his dearest memories. He, however, separated 
from us, and regretted with deep sorrow in the ranks of his fel- 
low-champions for the dear and noble freedom and unity of our 
Evangelical Church, still acts among us by his works and by his 
life, and thus, like the oldest of all the witnesses for God (Heb. 
xi 4), although he is dead, he yet speaketh. 


CONTENTS OF VOL IL 





- 
INTRODUCTION. 

PAGE 
Gene Definition of this, Church .233'b. 2s cals sce p Uaglacct scene chase come kh cuuaaue 13 

2. Definition of Ecclesiastical History—its Departments—General History of the 
Girsishign Chari. bo 5 lon Sem Os ~n.Gbaderseniewides seh Ave seg Rte gin tincse. Ce aan 14 
8. Relation of Church History to other Historical Studies .............--eee08- 19 
4. Of the Sources of Ecclesiastical History .. 2.0.00... ccc cececcececcccsecccecs 21 
5. The Inquiries peculiar to Ecclesiastical History...........0.seeeecececesees 23 

6. Arrangement of the Materials of Ecclesiastical History—Historical Represent- 
Mee Mae erage sian «thas ech esd dna iaeeL oP sc nla Cece eg ane sob seks 24 
7. Value of the History of the Oiitistian: Chorch:..95 6. oc cegnveteecatscedeter rh ae 


FIRST PERIOD. 


TO THE SOLE REIGN OF CONSTANTINE, BY WHICH THE ACKNOWLEDG- 
MENT OF THE CHURCH IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE WAS SECURED, I. E. 
TILL 824. 


Sources....... ALLEL oy poe bale cote hy less veeeabocae tus Me Fal uae seeoaehe eee 27 
WOPKSs rscccdsses cs POS aS aro Ne Gee ony son BEEN Seewtitee ens tenes 28 


FIRST DIVISION. 


TO THE TIME OF HADRIAN, 117. 


INTRODUCTION. 


ON THE CONDITION OF THE NATIONS, ESPECIALLY THEIR RELIGIOUS 
AND MORAL CONDITION AT THE TIME OF CHRIST’S BIRTH, AND 
DURING THE FIRST CENTURY. 


I. ConpiT1on oF THE HEATHEN NATIONS, § 8 ..-----,++000% Rig Woie ¥ieio 6 30 
§ 9. Of the Religious and Moral Character of the ancient Nebaais cunetally Kady = 81 


10. Religion and Morals of the Greeks .......scseecceeeseees btbctiaetenaiteetels-< .. 33 


xvi CONTENTS. 

: PAGE 

§ 11. Religion and Morals of the Romans to the Time of Augustus ............ ass Of 
12. Religious Tolerance of the Romans... .........2ccceecccnccscncccccsceees 35 
13. Relation of Philosophy to the popular Religion........ 2.2... eseeeeeeeees 36 
14, Revolution in the Mode of religious thinking under the Emperors........... 40 

II. ConDITION OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE. 

SID. An Palestine dg. > sukkah do ae0 thoes s = Cen wpe Gas cne che teeade as in sae sin aly aan LE 
16. Sentiments of the Heathen Nations toward Judaism. ............+. 00000005 47 
17. Condition of the Jews out of Palestine. ............ csc ceweceeneteecceeees 49 
aD, SURBTIVODO ha chs cis ap iaU ages eon taswun se) we tess lec pc teuipmave ans eane'ees 53 
19. Relation of the Times to Christianity in its @rowth...... whe Konsetcesexcss ~ OL 

FIRST CHAPTER. 
THE LIFE OF JESUS. 

§ 20. Chronological Data relative to the Life of Jesus............00++. Vcousnkete AED 
M1. Starly Estoy. OF Jesus. «wis... nc sas Scan badd Hic dseek Meo ee seh Lele hte 62 
22: OND ANG BA WIE oo vt io 55 sated abiele Sulewialans no's’ clo dhemaisid ees be ene tee Peaeee 63 
23. Public Ministry and Doctrines OTM 6 ok wis ciel tah veby Ee doe bis sie eee is 64 


24, Alleged contemporary Notices of Jesus not in the New Testament........... 68 


SECOND CHAPTER. 
APOSTOLIC AGE TO THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. 
§ 25. Early History of the Community of Christians till the Time of Paul’s Con- 


WEES. 55 2's Saco ea bes pies ssl ben dsEre i ccs cs Mes ee bes ee sh noes ae aaee 72 
Pitty EMU cin. siyin's pinls ne beds we Mads aRis snes be sumer esis AguleGny boas seen ta aaenwens 76 
27. History of the other Apostles and their immediate Disciples...............- 80 
28. Reception of Christianity among Jews and Heathen..... Pvc caccieveadeweuey 83 
29. Internal Development of Christianity .... 2.2.0... ..ceeecevcccoeses Fades ' 85 
30:-Constifition of Ghinrclies ;..7025. osdepswew caste chebanwuns dive sasest eaten 90 
31. Time of the Jewish Troubles ...... SS <cdeus Se eR ER ee Se oe dons gts cock veetnic 95 


THIRD CHAPTER. 
AGE OF JOHN. FROM 70-117. 


§ 32. Fate of the Jewish Christians in Palestine .............++. vulovahebakias sox 98 
83. External Fortunes of the Christians in the other Provinces of the Delia 
TEMPO. x. 2oss Foe eee cot en ERO E CG Ee Srlcee ye econ ch ULebeusewe sve vars 101 
84, Arrangements of tho ChurcheS..........0..scceececccccscceccenceccesters 104 
SG, Apostolic Pathore ai. Wiis cevedeate tee ce dds pudeeeeius cect ts yes eae 108 
36. Development of Doctrines during this Period ......... Susiwbewdseclceen eee 111 


CONTENTS. xvii 
: SECOND DIVISION. 
FROM HADRIAN TO SEPTIMUS SEVERUS. FROM 117-193. 
INTRODUCTION. 
PAGE 

Re Pe ROOM LUNE OF FTCA UNGIIOND 3. % 2. oc «pcikte ges ecsiececcic ws gerade neegecclosttnes 114 
Pee BCA LO DEOWS. «oie op o:0<4 bp ecm eteath soeleb0 a3°0 0 tab ehasten ens Ur sine ceaSeo es « 115 

FIRST CHAPTER. 
EXTERNAL FORTUNES OF CHRISTIANITY. 

§ 39. Its Diffusion ..:.. RADSS ye SE eee it Tt a Eres s ar ak Steet ee 117 
40. Opposition to Christianity by Writers ....... 0.0.0.0. cca beeen tees Re iieles’s 118 
41, Popular Disposition in the Roman Empire toward Christianity............. 119 
42. Persecutions of Christianity ............. he ee ty can einlseue ge apereie . 125 

SECOND CHAPTER. 
HERETICS. 

§ 43. Jewish Christians .............+...: RS ee RE CC TT OC Pre eee 128 
BET MHTIOBLNCS 2 Seer isi ey ah, w usted vias J OLLL.s 5 da slathgead ate Syce eee FOES ademas Deb 129 
45. (Continuation.) 1. Alexandrian Gnostics—Basilides—Valentinus—Ophites ; 

: SO REDOCTALPANT (a cie V oan bitie's nao ie at wee aris be ota ke bOs cabs wens oe ouniee > 133 
46. (Continuation.) 2. Syrian Gnostics—Saterninus—Bardesanes—Tatian ..... 137 
47. (Continuation.) 3. Marcion and his School. ........5c0.....seceeeeeeeeees 138 
48. Montanists and Alogi........... Secuc gud hase obwsecdas sq opeLebad eS eiaars te 140 
f 
THIRD CHAPTER. 
INTERNAL History oF THE CartHoxic CHURCH, § 49 oo 0. Fae ece ees 144 

§ 50. Apologies for Christianity. against Heathens and Jews ........-++.0+++ Vaies wHh4 
51. Controversy with Heretics— Catholic Church—Canon of the New Testa- 

DMI ics Hh sgscsa, Dea See CaM IG PTH 6 Woe ONT Pe hag eH wveged eet. k at8 
52. Deyelopment of Doctrines—Supposititious Writings ...+-.-...........0000- 153 
53. Ecclesiastical Life ............0000% aerate el ii Coe RS. Weciyin 159, 


Vor L—I1 





xviii CONTENTS. 


THIRD DIVISION. 


FROM SEPTIMUS SEVERUS TO THE SOLE DOMINION OF CONSTANTINE. | 
FROM 193-324. 


INTRODUCTION. 
‘ PAGE 

§ 54. Condition of Heathenism.............0.--eeeeeeeeeers nbnevindeees diane se 171 

FIRST CHAPTER. 
EXTERNAL FORTUNES OF CHRISTIANITY. 

§ 55. Disposition of the Heathen toward it..........sccceveceseeceeeceeerseeess 174 
56. Conduct of the Emperors toward the Christians ..............0ceeeeeceeees 176 
57. ‘Spread-of the Churchy j.c%. oss. 6 cies oe ve ds baldoiane Sin Mesias sd.an inns paaWeas 187 

SECOND CHAPTER. 
HERETICS. 
§ 58. Elcesaitism of the Clementines...........seeceeneeees MP ie aI Woseeee- 188 
59. Struggle in Rome against Montanism, and the Asiatic Mode of celebrating 
Same. 5. ss vigete Reread Wee eee SAY IST he a Es ha aa eS 193 
OO. MronarChians. 7 oo... 5 as Seicd bee oth oh sc dweth ods ates Douek he toy sh pe gk ae 197 
Gl. Maniichacans .......cccscerssveccoees SENS aA eS Sipe Lathe oy Si Sn 203 
THIRD CHAPTER. 
THEOLOGY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 
‘J. In tHe East. \ 

$62, Alexandrian’ Schools csiyal fap okes cope weedy Coad diaivwis shiek: ode parece wen « 208 

63, (Continuation.) View of the Alexandrian Theology, particularly that. of 
QI 5. cise 52 ob seal HORI PASS Rigas amid VE WS Olen SSN dig Keene 8 owes 211 

64. (Continuation.) Adherents and Opponents of Origen ............eceeeeeee 220 

65. Other distinguished Teachers of the Oriental Church. ............0.0000-00+ 223 
BEF ER EROS VCRs ed rt sek hase natn dS 9 Ws ov na wet yess otk vo'ciss eavese 225 


CONTENTS. te 


FOURTH CHAPTER, 


PAGE 
ECCLESEARTICATS Tew we) $67 3 voy Wis Foe cave eas cosa ee Pils ps hed wees cd 231 

§ GG, Migtenpal the Eiiacarchiy, 3 > 5 220,202 os oon ndns ncas SnsZacwr sna gseccons 234° 
69. (Continuation.) Hierarchy in the separate Churches.................00.04 240 
70. .Public Worship... 2... .-.ceceteerese sb eve ogenereneresecevererersescus 244 
41, Kecleaiastical Discipline... 7. 6 6o 5 s'c8 oo eco en os ctingeszepspecerecseccsoave 248 


72. (Continuation.) Controversies respecting the Objects of Ecclesiastical Disci- 
pline. Felicissimus — Novatian — Baptism of Heretics— Meletius— Do- 


MOUIN eee 35a Cae ak Cho ee ek CRG Ona Ue BHOe oie ce teeter atest 253 
FO; PAO 6S. Soa occ cue ss Opti MEM at ow sikeoc ee ese tet cue cenlee be etaer 258 
74, Moral Character of Christianity in this Period ..............2-eeeees 3h aie dé 263 





SECOND PERIOD. 


FROM CONSTANTINE TO THE BEGINNING OF THE IMAGE-CONTRO- 
VERSY. FROM A.D. 524-726. 


FIRST DIVISION. 


TO THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON. A.D. 324-451. 
IDET cas ne vitiecs bee vse onapeee Fa aleta.e cidivtpalad neree LSibacbweqase> enti.dsereeae 2Oe 


FIRST CHAPTER. 


STRUGGLE OF CHRISTIANITY WITH PAGANISM. 


§ 75. The Advantages conferred on Christianity by Constantine and his Sons ..... 271 
2G. Jtlian the Apostate... 5.4.0. mar de ceeie oie vanes y See Chae dhe dee aor oft mae aK oles 278 
¥ietzeneral. 1oleration till: the Year B88 05055. e<e5 ss sey édecieencteeecedoecaceee 281 
78. Suppression of Paganism by Theodosius ...........02.ceecseceeeerereeeees 282 
79. Complete Suppression of oa por sae in the East—its Struggles in the West, 

RETR  PRCOGDEANR 5 oiuie alge toriee oF xb tds Loe ca oe sen 0 eDe pe ccepnre.cse «- 285 
SECOND CHAPTER. 
HISTORY OF THEOLOGY. 
§ 80. MMNIPNRE CSCI 6,2 hor rachat a! o's Neigh ae Se pges ete Saw Sa dea sccl ge Lata ewenwvaches ecm 
I. Periop or THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
§ 81. Beginning of the Arian Controversy to the Synod of Nice (A.D. 325) ....... 294 


~~ 


z 
xx CONTENTS. 
PAGE 

§ 82. Resistance of the Eusebians to the Nicene Council till the second Synod at 

Girmimn(A.D. BH) is. sc Poveem. ddca vy tavwka pr. terccecer ooceesctine 298 
83. Divisions among the Eusebians till the Suppression of Arianism (A.D. 381) . 302 
84. History of the Theological Sciences during the Arian Controversy......... 314 
II. Pertop or rE ORIGENISTIC AND PELAGIAN CoNTROVERSIES. 

S85, Origenistic Controversy. ve on’. 0. b occ wes ep scsat sane sadhes peace cceanwesecs 323 
86, Controversies with Heretics in the West . 2.22.22. .c.c cece ce cees cece ee eees 326 
Bie helnmian CommOversy i. so... cee lsc seeonstowrytpnaeca¥apescepees Seas neds 330 

III. CoNTROYERSIES RESPECTING THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 

BOS. Nestorian mover ay, aces Grin cie lin Ach ens Wisig ss ace ex veins so vasee nse? - 343 
89. Eutychian Controversy............. Std Heth cist’ o'5 ening nal ban diulal tm: « 355 
90. On the Theological Authority of Oecumenical Councils .........0++++ee0++ 359 

THIRD CHAPTER. 
HISTORY OF THE HIERARCHY. 

§ 91, Growing Importance of the Clergy ..........0cs.2stccececccecececscccios 361 
92, Dependence of the Hierarchy on the State -......... 2. cect cece eececececs 368 
93. Origin of Patriarchs, especially in the East .....--.........0.eeseseeeeeee 71 
94 


. History of the Roman Patriarchs and of the higher Hierarchy in the West. 377 


FOURTH CHAPTER. 


“HISTORY OF MONACHISM, 


§ 95. Origin and History of Monachism in the East.............++ watioveeeents 397 
96. Monachism in the West ......... ote ce seer vceeveceescoccescons Se cccceees 408 
97. Relation of the Monks to the Clergy .......... do cbeseciocescopesesvodeds Ake 


§ 99. 
(400. 
101. 


§ 102, 


103. 
104. 
105. 


FIFTH CHAPTER. 


History oF Pusric WorsHIP, § 98..........ee00s te atiae eohse sieve AID 
‘New Objects of Worship..... Sh bbb ache Chemneen week bs oy eSamey sv eenee ts sues 416 
Places and Times of Public Worship.............. a weGnidevacsasheevwasyy S29 
Rites and Ceremonies of Worship ............. Seupaverdéscebstedéesees Se 

SIXTH CHAPTER. : 
HISTORY OF MORALS, 
History of Christian Ethics Setiget sth. Syn Cae sete Bie kuppleyse vases « 439 
Morals of the Clergy .:.......ceccseeeeseeseeceucs ey Tie Se SE 441 
Moral Influence of the Church on n the WSOPIO GS sp 0s scat eevaseaen Risiees e's < 445 
Influence of the Church on Legislation.......... aeardrse tend vas ¥ FUrietees 453 


% CON TENTS. xxi 

SEVENTH CHAPTER. 
s PAGE 
ATTEMPTS AT REFORMATION, § 106 ....... 00.2005 whxvle dust a Cite nah 455 

EIGHTH CHAPTER. 
SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY. 

GTO Fe TIRIRG TBR a vos hid aWemsin So Seibee Sorgttns org ole cig caeies ew teosasagees vesee ee 458 
ORES SES eee MRE $8 Fa ae oo. bane < Sin o'e <n ae ume ie ota edad of DD Et ES ews eas 460 


SECOND DIVISION. 


FROM THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON TO THE BEGINNING OF THE MON- 
OTHELITIC CONTROVERSIES, AND THE TIME QF MUHAMMED, A.D. 
451-622. r 


SOURCE . cyicw sie voce e's A ee PEE En, ET OR ARTE PROT eT a bee es orebee ve 465 
' 


) 


FIRST CHAPTER. 


EnTizE SUPPRESSION OF PAGANISM IN THE RoMAN EmpPIre, § 109 .. 464 


SECOND CHAPTER. 
HISTORY OF THEOLOGY. 


§ 110. Monophysite Controversies ...............00eceecees rapes deveceesees ae 466 
111. Controversies under Justinian I. .....2.....-.. iS OSEME GS evetegecasides 475 
112. Development of Monophysite Churches..............cceececceccecesesces 481 
113. Controversy between Augustinism and Semipelagianism ...............--. 483 
114, History of the Theological Sciences ................200+- Ra vee sine tae y'e si 486 


THIRD CHAPTER. 
HISTORY OF THE HIERARCHY. 


Bb ee ERRVAlOz ON OF THU CITES cc ois S Ecc kn vet cvawasteccpevubscsnencvogdepeves 492 
116. Dependence of the Hierarchy.on the State ...........2--c0s-eseeecseeeees 494 
puas«, Edtstory-_of thie Patrinpohee so 35 6) 808 Ss 5 aa Se Late es senses 495 


FOURTH CHAPTER. 


History or Moxacutsm, § RIG 55 ogi n da cist cd} ov ae sheeed see TENT DOD 
IONE 00s las oars ce cs bees SU ola cards 60 0 Whee deagies Cosa beeen 507 
120. Relation ef the Monks to the Clergy... ........220seeceeetecveneeseeeeees 510 


xxhi CONTENTS. 
. FIFTH CHAPTER. 


History or Pusirc Worsuip, § LL Serine? pele eS enedeuoesesescce 512 


SIXTH CHAPTER. 
SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY, AND ITS CONDITION WITHOUT THE RO- 


MAN EMPIRE. 
I. In Asta AND Arnica, § 122 .......¢.55y.2...45: Eas lo 5 teealen 517 
II. Amone THE GERMAN NATIONS, § 123........-.0.0e0eeeeeceeeeees 519 
§ 124. Hierarchy in the German Empire... 2.’ 0.06500 delecobesceensennssnverass 521 
125. Moral Influences of Christianity among the German Nations ...........-.. 525 
TIT. OLD Brivish CHURCH, § 126. .........2 cece enc ncseccececerecceee 529 


THIRD DIVISION. 
FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE MONOTHELITIC CONTROVERSY, AND 


FROM THE TIME OF MUHAMMED TO THE BEGINNING OF THE CON- 
TROVERSY CONCERNING THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES. FROM 622-726. 


FIRST CHAPTER. 


RESTRAINING OF THE CHURCH IN THE EAST, § 127........cccceeeees 534 


SECOND CHAPTER. 
HISTORY OF THE GREEK CHURCH. 


§ 128. Monothelitic Controversy... ....s0.c20cee:ceeeeeceeetvcwentecessues Se § 
129. Concslsnin’ Quintsesetyn 3.5.55. o see cre donieds ipebeniea iowa cele caved asals 0f 541 
180. Fortunes of Monothelitism .... 2... 5... cs dae ccscepcccccpoccssoecs Sapecnes 543 


THIRD CHAPTER. 
HISTORY OF THE WESTERN CHURCH. 


§ 131. Ecclesiastical State of Italy... 2.20.06 .csecececcsescedescscecs ee Ter eT ie 545 
182. Ecclesiastical State of France and Spain........ PisiGdser dws hBecey asshoe 548 
133. Ecclesiastical Condition of the British Islands..............2....00eeeeees 552 
134. Spread of Christianity in Germany... ........s.scecusasceccccseeccccees 557 


Additions to the Literature and Notes, by the Editor........ceeecseeecsees 559 


PREFATORY NOTICE, 





Dr. Gieseter’s Compendium of Ecclesiastical History is 
marked by peculiar excellencies. It occupies an important 
position of its own. The text is very brief and condensed, 
marking the results at which the learned author has arrived ; 
while the accumulated materials in the notes enable the 
reader to see at once the basis on which the statements of 
the text rest. If the student be not convinced of the correct- 
ness of the assertions made by the historian, he can easily 
draw his own conclusion by the help of what is presented to 
him. ‘The work is characterized by immense research, and 
by striking impartiality. In the latter respect, indeed, the 
author has been blamed by some, his spirit of impartiality 
preventing him from expressing a decided opinion, where it 
would be desirable to throw the weight of his authority into 
the side of truth. ‘There is also an air of dryness diffused 
over the work, inseparable perhaps from its exceeding brevity, 
but also indicating a deficiency in vivid sketching. The ex- 
cellencies, however, far outweigh any minor faults that may 
be supposed to belong to it. Its rigid impartiality is its chief 
recommendation ; and the abundant references and quotations 
in the notes supply the want of a library such as very few 
have within their reach. 


iv PREFACE. 


The work in the original consists of several volumes pub- 
lished at different times. The first division of the last vol- 
ume, containing a portion of the history of the Reformation 
in different lands, appeared in 1840. In 1844 and 1845 a 
fourth edition of the first volume was published, one part in 
each year, greatly improved and enlarged. 'The author states, 
in the preface, that this volume first appeared twenty years 
ago, and that during the interval he has not been inattentive 
to the subject, but has endeavored to conform his book to the 
latest investigations. On comparing this edition with the 
third, we have observed a great improvement, and a large 
number of new notes. : 

It may be proper to apprize the reader, that an American 
translation of the history, down to the time of the Reformation, 
appeared at Philadelphia in 1836, professedly taken from the 
third edition of the original, the fourth, however, is so different 
from the third (if, indeed, Cunninghame’s version was made 
from the latter), that it was deemed desirable to make a new 
version. _ 

The Translator has adhered closely to the original text. 
His simple aim_has been to give the sense of his author. He 
has not endeavored to make the narrative smooth or elegant, 
for in that case he should have been compelled to resort to 
paraphrase, Professor Gieseler being by no means an elegant 
writer. On the contrary, his style is loose, and his sentences 
evidently constructed without any view to effect. It must be 
always remembered, that the book is a text-book, not an ex- 
tended history, like Neander’s. As such, the Translator 


reckons it invaluable. In truth, there are only two ecclesias- 


PREFACE. Vv 


tical histories at the present time that deserve to be read and 
studied, viz. those of Neander and Gieseler, both ex fontibus 
hausti, as Bretschneider once remarked to the writer. Gue- 
rike’s is one-sided ; and Hase’s, alas is too short. The Trans- 
lator, on looking about for a:text-book which he could put into 
the hands of his students as the substratum of lectures on ec- 
clesiastical history, could find none go suitable to his purpose 
as the present ; and he accordingly recommended the enterpris- 
ing publishers to bring out a new version of the new edition, 
that students might not be obliged to apply to the American 
translation, the cost of which is very considerable. 
It is almost superfluous to state, that the Translator does 
not goincide with all the sentiments of Dr. Gieseler. He has 
occasionally inserted in brackets a reference to books with 


which the German professor is probably unacquainted. 


pee ont 
Sz ies 


#n: sdeeibaa ae 


2 pe. 


wiles 
Tug 





mY 





“S 
Fs 
I 





INTRODUCTION. im 





oor 


THE CHURCH. 


Standlin iiber den Begriff der Kirche und Kirchengeschichte (in the Gottingen Bibliothek 
d. Neuesten Theolog. Literatur i. 600). C: G. Bretschneider’s systemat. Entwickelung 
aller in der Dogmatik vorkommenden Begriffe (4te Auflage, Leipzig, 1841), 8.749. Dr. 
H. F. Jacobson, iiber die Individualitat des Wortes u. Begriffes Kirche (in his Kirchen- 
rechtlichen Versuchen, i. 58). 


e. f. 

The Christian Church' (4 éxxdnoia tod Xptorod, Matt. xvi. 
18, 7 éxxAnoia tov Oeov, 1 Cor. x. 32, Gal. i. 13) is a religious- 
moral society, connected together by a common faith in Christ, 
and which seeks to represent in its united life the kingdom of 
God announced by Christ (tiv Bacireiay tov Ocod, tov Xprotov, 
tov otpavov). ‘This kingdom it hopes to see at one time realized, 
and strives to prepare itself for becoming worthy of having a 
part in it.” The church bears the same relation to the kingdom 


“! The German word Kirche, which was originally applied to the building alone, is most 
probably. derived from the Greek, 7d xvpiaxév. Wealafrid Strabo (about 840), De rebus 
ecclesiasticis, e.7. Quomodo theotisce domus Dei dicatur (in Melch. Hittorp. de Divinis 
Cathol. Eccles. officiis varii vetust.Patrum libri. Colon. 1568, fol. p. 395): Ab ipsis autem 
Graecis Kyrch a Kyrios—et alia multa accepimus.—Sicut domus Dei Basilica, i, e. Regia 
a Rege, sic etiam Kyrica, i. e. Dominica a Domino nuncupatur.—Si autem quaeritur, qua 
occasione ad nos vestigia haec graecitatis advenerint, dicendum,—praecipue a Gothis, qui 
et Getae, cum eo fempore,; quo ad fidem Christi, licet non recto itinere, perducti sunt, in 

-Graecorum provinciis commorantes, nostrum, i. e. theotiscum sermonem habuerint. It ap- 
pears from Ulphilas, that Greek appellations of Christian things were generally adopted 
by the Goths (see Zabn’s Ulphilas, Th. 2, 8. 69, ff.; also aikklesjon, ¢xxAnoia, Phil. iii. 6. in 
the fragments published by-Maius). The Greek origin of the word is favored not only by 
its occurrence in all German dialects (Swedish Kyrka, Danish Kyrke, &c.), but also in the 
dialects of the Slavonian nations converted by the Greeks (Bohemian cyrkew, Polish cer- 
kiew, Russian zerkow). Other derivations of the word are Kieren (Kiesen), from the 
Gothic, Kelikn, a tower, &c. Compare Jacobson’s work, p. 68, ff. ‘ 

? ‘The idea of the church is an individual idea, given historically, for which-we can not 
substitute the general notion (viz. that of a religious society) wnder which it falls: See 

Jacobson, p. 116. Ullmann in the Studien und Kritiken, 1835, iii. 607. 





14. INTROD. §2. DEFINITION OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 


of God as the Israelitish church (nin: “Op, Numb. xx. 4) had to 
the ideal theocracy expected by it. And as the divine kingdom 
of Christ is the purified and spiritualantitype of the theocracy, so 
is the Christian church the antitype of the Jewish. Differences 
relating to the objects of Christian faith and ecclesiastical life 
early separated the church into various distinct societies, each of 
which commonly assumed to itself exclusively the name of the 


'$¢true church of Christ,” and branded the others with the titles 


heresy and schism (haeresis, schisma). 

While the old unreformed church associations are continually 
prejudiced by this particularism, Protestants, on the contrary, 
acknowledge every ecclesiastical society which holds Christian 
truth in greater or less purity and clearness, to be a preparatory 
institution for the kingdom of God, and as such belonging to the 
universal Christian church, whose true essence is the invisible 
church, the entire number of all true believers throughout the 
world, 


§ 2. 


DEFINITION OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY—ITS PARTS—GENERAL 
HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. 


Casp. Royko Einleit. in die christl. Religions- und Kirchengeschichte. Aufl. 2. Prag. 1791. 
8.—Ch. W. Fliigge Einleit. in das Studium u.in die Literatur der Religions- u. Kirchen- 
geschichte, besonders der christlichen. Géttingen. 1801. 8. 

The object of ecclesiastical history is to give a pragmatic view 
of all the changes and developments through which the Christian 
church has passed, and the influences which it has exerted on 
other human relations, and thus to lay the foundation for an eth- 
ical and teleological estimate of it. As time consists of moments, 
so is history made up of circumstances connected together as 
cause and effect. Every condition of the church rests on a two- 


‘ fold relation. To its znéernal relations belongs, first of all, that 


religious faith which forms its bond of union, both in its scientific 
development and in its life in the members; next the character 
of the publie religious exercises ; and thirdly, the form of gov- 
ernment. To the external relations of the church belong ‘ts 
diffusion and its relation to other associations, particularly to 
the state. Though these several relations are not independent 


INTROD. § 2. DEPARTMENTS OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 15 


of one another, but are developed by constant mutual action, 
they admit of separate historical developments. We have, 
therefore, 


I. A history of the church’s external relations (external church 
history), viz. :— 6 ah 

1. History of its spread and limitation.’ 

2. History of its relation to the state.’ 


II. A history of its internal relations (internal history of the 
church), viz. :— 
1. History of the teaching of the church. 
(a.) As an object of science. 
History of doctrines (Dogmengeschichte).* 
History of ethics.’ 


1 Jo. Al. Fabricii salutaris lux Evangelii toti orbi exoriens, s. notitia propagatorum 
christ. sacrorum. Hamburgi. 1731. 4to. P. Ch. Gratianus Versuch einer Geschichte iiber 
den Ursprung und die Fortpflanzung des Christenthums in Europa. Tiibingen. 1766, 73. 
2Th. 8vo. The same author’s Geschichte de> Pflanzung des Christenthums in den aus 
den Triimmern des rém. Kaiserthums entstandenen Staaten Europens. Tiibingen. 1778, 9. 
2Th. 8vo. Ch. G. Blamhardt Versuch einer allgemeinen Missionsgeschichte. Basel. 1828, 
ff. 3 Th. 8vo. 

2 Petri de Marca Dissertationum de concordia sacerdotii et imperii s. de libertatibus ec- 
clesiae gallicanae, libb. viii. ed. Steph. Baluzius. Paris. 1663. fol. cum observationibus ec- 
clesiasticis J. H. Boehmeri. Lips. 1708. fol. G.J.Planck’s Geschichte der christlich-kirch- 
lichen Gesellschaftsverfassung. Hannover. 1803-1809: 5 Bde. 8vo. The following work 
is written from a Catholic standpoint: Geschichtlich. Darstellung des Verhialtnisses 
zwischen Kirche und Staat von Casp. Riffel. Theil. 1 (to Justinian 1st). Mainz. 1836. 
8vo. > 

3 Dion Petavii Dogmata Theologica. Paris. 1644-50. 4 Theile. 4to. cum praefat. et notis 
Cheophili Alethini (Jo. Clerici). Amst. 1700. 6 Theile. fol. W. Miinscher’s Handbuch 
der Christlichen Dogmengeschichte. Marburg. 1797-1809. 4 Thle. 8vo, incomplete. The 
same author's Lehrbuch d. christl. Dogmengeschichte, 3te Auflage, mit Belegen aus den 
Quellenschriften, Erginzungen d. Literatur, hist. Noten u. Fortsetzungen. versehen von 
Dr. D. v. Colin und Dr. Ch. G. Neudecker, 3 Bde. Cassel. 1832-38. Dogmengeschichte 


_ von Dr. J. G. V. Engelhardt. 2 Theile. Neustadt a. d. Aisch. 1839. Lehrbuch d. Dog- 
~ mengeschichte von Dr. K.R. Hagenbach. 2 Thle.in3Bden. Leipzig. 1840, 1841. Other 


text books by Chr. D. Beck (Commentarii historici decretorum rel. christ. Lips. 1801). J. 


Chr. W. Augusti (3te Ausg. Leipzig, 1820). L. F. O. Baumgarten-Crusius. 2 Abth. Jena. 


1832. (The same authors Compendium d. Dogmengesch. Leipz. 1840.) F. K. Meier. 
Giessen. 1840. ~ 

4 Stiudlin’s Geschichte der Sittenlehre Jesu. 4 Bde. Géttingen 1799-1823 (reicht bis 
1299). The same author's Gesch. d. christ]. Moral seit dem Wiederaufleben d. Wissen- 
schaften. Géttingen. 1808. W.M. L. de Wette christliche Sittenlehre, 2ter Theil: Alige- 
meine Geschichte der christlichen Sittenlehre, in 2 Hilften. Berlin 1819-21. 8. Stdud- 
lin's. Monographieen: Gesch. d. Vorstellungen v. der Sittlichkeit des Schauspiels. Gétt. 
1823. Gesch. d. Vorstell. u. Lehren vom Selbstmorde. Ebend. 1824. v. Hide. Ebend. 
1824. y.Gebete. Ebend. 1824. v.Gewissen. Halle. 1824. v.d.Ehe. Gott, 1826. v.d. 
Freundschaft. Hannover. 1826. 8. 


it, Se 


16 INTRODUCTION. §2. GENERAL HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. 


History of the theological sciences.’ 
(6.) As living and working in men. 
History of religious and moral life.® 
2. History of ecclesiastical worship.’ 
3. History of the internal constitution of the church.® 
A descriptiébn of the worship, ecclesiastical usages, and consti- 
tution of the ancient church, is included in the somewhat vague 
appellation, ecclesiastical antiquities, or archaeology,’ although 
these departments do not embrace merely one point of time, but 
a longer or shorter period, and ought, therefore, to belong to 
history. 
The materials of ecclesiastical history are also divided by a 
reference to. particular countries, and to separate ecclesiastical 
societies,'® whose special developments are presented in special 


' 6 Ch. W. Fliigge’s Geschichte der theol. Wissenschaften. Halle. 1796-98. 3 Thle. 8 (as 
far as the Reformation). K. F. Staudlin’s Gesch. der theol. Wissenschaften seit der Ver- 
breitung der alten Literatur. Gdttingen. 1810-11. 2 Thle. &.- 

6 The history of religious and moral life among Christians is difficult, and has been neg- 
lected down to the latest times. Formerly there appeared only one-sided representations 
of the life of the first Christians, for example, by W. Cave, Gottfr. Arnold, Peter Zorn. 
The history of morals is interwoven with it in Staudlin’s history of the moral teaching of 
Christ. (Geschichte der Sittenlehre Jesu; see note 4.) For the history of Christian life 
see Neander’s Denkwiirdigkeiten aus der Geschichte des Christenthums und des christ- 
lichen Lebens. Berlin. aie ff. 3 vols. [A third edition of the first volume has been 
lately published.] 

7 Edm. Martene De antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus. 3te sehr verm. Aufl. Antverp. 1736-38. 
4 Thle. fol. C. Shéne Geschichtsforschungen tber die kirchl. Gebrauche u, Einrichtungen 
der Christen. Berlin. 1819, ff. [Only three volumes are yet published.] 

8 L. Thomassini Vetus et Nova Ecclesiae Disciplina circa beneficia et beneficiarios. 
Lucae..1728. 3 Thle. fol. Planck’s Gesch. der Christl. kirchl. Gesellschaftsverfassung 
(see above, note 2). 

9 Origines Ecclesiasticae, or the Antiquities of the Christian Church, by Joseph Bingham. 
A new edition, 8 vols. 8vo. London. 1839, ff Jos. Binghami Origines sive Antiquitates 
Ecclesiasticae ex. angl. lat. redditae a J. H. Grischovio. Halae. 1724-38, 11 vol. 4. J. C. 
W. Augusti’s Denkwirdigkeiten aus d. Christl. Archaologie.. Leipz. 1817, ff. 12 Bde. 
The same author’s Handbuch d. Christl. Archéologie. Ebend. 1836, ff. 3 Bde. F.H. 
Rheinwald’s Kirchl. Archaologie. Berlin. 1830. Béhmer’s Christl. Kirchl. Alterthums- 
wissenschaft. Breslau. 1836. 2 Bde. From Catholic authors we have F. Th. Mamachii 
Originum et Antiquitatum Christianorum, libb. xx. There have only appeared libb. iv. 


*Romae. 1749-55. 4. J. L. Selvaggii Antiquitatum Christianarum Institutiones libb. iii. in 


6 partibus.. Neapoli. 1772-74. 8. Alex. Aur. Pelliccia de Christ. Ecclesiae primae; me- 
diae et, novissimae aetatis politia libb. vi. Neapoli. 1777. 3 Bde. 8. ed. nova, cura J. J. 
Ritterii et Braunii. 2 T. Colon. 1829. 38.8. A German translation by A. J. Binterim: 
Die Vorziiglichsten Denk wirdigkeiten der Christ-Kathol. Kirche, mit bes. Riicksichtnahme 
auf d. Disciplin d. Kath. K.in Deutschland. Mainz. 1825, ff. 7 Thle. in 17 Bden. Loch- 
erer Lehrb. d. Christl. Archaologie. Frankf. 1832. 

10 The history of parties separated from the catholic Church has been confined with too 


much one-sidedness merely to their controversies with the catholic Church. C. W. F. 


Walch’s Vollstandige Historie der Ketzereien, Spaltungen u. Religionsstreitigkeiten bis 


INTRODUCTION. § 2. GENERAL HISTORY OF THE CHURCH 74 


histories. But yet in the progress of development, the separate 
ecclesiastical relations, ded also the national and separate eccle- 
siastical societies of particular lands, are constantly acting upon 
each other in a greater or less degree; so that no special history, 
or description of individual ecclesiastical ‘relations, can be wholly 
separated from the rest of the history, It is the object of the 
general history of the Christian church” to exhibit the general 
steps in its progress, so that its relation to the ideal of the church, 


auf die Reformation. Leipzig. 1762. 11 Thle. 8 (reaching as far as the image-controversy). 
[Lardner’s History of the Heretics. Burton’s Inquiry into the Heresies of the Apostolic 
Age, being the Bampton Lecture for 1829.] 

11 Works on the general history of the Christian Church. 


I.—BY PROTESTANT WRITERS. 


Kcclesiastica historia—congesta per aliquot studiosos et pios viros in urbe Magdeburga. 
Basil. 1559-74, 13 Bde. fol. (embraces. thirteen cénturies), usually called Centuriae Magde- 
burgenses. The new edition by Semler (Norimb. 1757, ff. 6 voll. 4) is incomplete. 

J. H. Hottingeri Hist. Ecclesiastica Novi Testamenti. Hanov. et Tiguri. 1655-67. 9 
Thle. 8, to the end of the sixteenth century. 

J. L. Mosheim Institutionum Historiae Ecclesiasticae Antiquae et Recentioris libb. iv 
‘Helmst. 1755. 4 (Mosheim’s Vollstandige Kirchengeschichte, frei ibersetzt u. mit. Zusatzen 
von J. A. Cp. v. Einem. Leipzig. 1769-78. 9 Thle. 8. Von J. R. Schlegel. Heilbr. u. 
Rothenb. 1770-96. 7 Bde.8). [Translated into English by Maclaine, with notes, and fre- 
quently reprinted. Also by James Murdock, D-D., 3 vols. 8vo, fifth edition, 1854.] 

J.S. Semler Historiae Eccles. selecta capita cum epitome canonum, excerptis dogmaticis 
et tabulis chronologicis. Halae. 1773-78. 3 Bde: 8, to the end of the fifteenth century. 

H. Venema Institutiones Hist. Ecclesiae Vet. et Novi Testam. Lugd. Batav. 1777-83. 
7 Thle., to the end of the sixteenth century. 

J. Matth. Schréckh’s Christl. Kirchengeschichte bis zur Reformation. Leipzig. 1768- 
1803. 35 Thle. 8. The same author’s Kirchengesch, seit der Reformat. Ebend. 1804-10. 
10 Thle. 8 (ninth and tenth parts by H. G. Tzschirner). 

H. P. C. Henke’s Allgemeine Gesch. der Christl. Kirche, fortgesetzt von J. 8. Vater- 
Braunschweig. 1788-1820. 8 Thle. 8, of the first and second parts, the fifth edition, 1816- 
20; of the third and fourth, the fourth edition, 1806. The history since the Reformation 
{parts 3-8) is comprised in a third volume by Vater, 1823. 

J. E. Ch. Schmidt’s Handbuch der Christlichen Kirchengeschichte. Giessen. 1801-20. 

6 Thle. (Th. 1-4, 2te Aufl. 1825-27), continued by F. W. Rettberg. Th. 7, 1834, reaches 
to 1305. 
A. Neander’s Allgem. Geschichte der Christ]. Religion u. Kirche. Hamb, 1825, ff. 8, 
' bis Bd. 5. Abth.1, in 9 Thlen. geht bis 1300 (new edition, of Bd. 1, Abth. 1, in 2 Bden. 
1842 u. 43). [Two volumes, embracing the first three centuries, have been translated from 
the first edition, by Henry John Rose.] 

H, E. F. Guerike’s Handb. der Allgem. Kirchengesch. 2 Bde. Halle. 1833 (Ste Aufl. 
1854). 

J. G. V. Engelhardt’'s Handbuch der Kirchengesch. 4 Bde. Erlangen. 1833, 34. 

A. F. Gfrérer’s Allgem. Kirchengesch. fiir die Deutsche Nation. 4 Bde. (Stuttgart. 
18415.) 

Manuals by J. M. Schrockh (Hist. Relig. et Eccles. Christ. 1777. ed. 7, cara Ph. Marhei- 
necke. Berol. 1828). L. T. Spittler (Gdtt. 1782. 5te Aufl. bes. v. G. J. Planck. 1812). J. 
E. Chr. Schmidt (Giessen. 1800. 3te Aufl. 1826). W. Miinscher (Marburg. 1804. 2te Aufl 
v.L. Wachler. 1815. 3te Anfl. y. M. J. H. Beckhaus. 1826). K.F. Staudlin (Hann. 1806 | 


Vou £2 


18 InrRopection, § 2. GENERAL HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. 


the kingdom of God, may be perceived. Accordingly, such his- 
torical data alone as refer to this general progress, are important 
in its view; while those data which have only a more limited 
significance, are left to special histories. 


5te Aufl. v. Holzhausen. 1833). J.T.L. Danz(2Thle. Jena. 1818-26). K. Hase (Leipz. 
1834. 7te Aufl. 1854). P. Hofstede de Groot. Groningae. 1835. H. J. Royaards fase. 2, 
Traj. ad Rh. 1840. 

J. S. Vater’s Synchronist. Tafeln der Kirchengesch. Halle. 1803. 4te Aufl. 1825. fol. 

[English works are, Priestley’s General History of the Christian Church to the present 
time, 6 vols. 8yo. London. 1780-1803. Milner’s Church History, continued by J. Scott. 
Jones’s History of the Christian Church. Waddington’s History, originally published in 
the Library of Useful Knowledge ; to which was afterward added, a History of the Refor- 
mation, in 3 vols. See also Campbell’s Lectures on Ecclesiastical History.] 

 . 
II. BY CATHOLIC WRITERS. 


Caes. Baronii Annales Ecclesiastici. Rome. 1588-1607. 12 Bde. fol. reaches to 1198; 
the edition of Mogunt. 1601, was improved by the author himself, and has, consequently, 
been made the basis of succeeding editions. Among the continuators of Baronius, has 
been most valued Odoricus Raynaldus Ann. Eccles. Tom. xiii.-xxi. Rom. 1646-77. (Tom. 
Xxi. was suppressed by Romish censorship till 1689. Of Tom. xiii—xx. anew and improved 
edition was published by the author at Colon. 1693, ss.), reaches to 1565. This was con- 
tinued by Jac. de Laderchio. Ann. Eccl. T. xxii-xxiy. Rom. 1728-37, embracing the 
years 1566-71. 

Other continuations of Baronius are those of Abr. Bzovii. Rom.1616. Tomi viii. to 1564 
fimproved edition. Colon. 1621, ss.), and that of Henr. Spondani.. Paris. 1640-41. Tomi ii. 
to 1640. Critiques: Is. Casauboni Exercitationes XVI. ad Card. Baronii prolegom. Lon- 
dini. 1614. fol. continued by Sam. Basnagius: Exercitationes—in quibus Card. Baronii 
Annales ab anno Christi XXXV., in quo Casaubonus desiit, expenduntur.  Ultraj. 1692, 
also 1717. 4. Anton. Pagi critica historico- chronologica i in annales Baronii ed. Franc. * See 
Antverp, properly Geneva, 1705, also 1727. _T. iv. fol. 

A great edition of Baronii Annales, Raynaldi-continuatio, Pagi critica, and of ibe 
smaller writings, by Dom. Ge. and Dom. Jo. Mansi. Luce. 1738-59. 38 Bde. fol. 

Natalis Alexandri Hist. Eccles. Vet: et Novi Testamenti. Paris. 1699. 8 Bde. fol. 
(reaches to the end of the 16th century). Claude Fleury Histoire Ecclesiastique. Paris. 
1691-1720. 20 Bde. 4 (reaches to 1414), continued by Jean Claude Fabre. Paris. 1726-40. 
16 Bde. 4. Casp. Sacharelli Historia Ecclesiastica. Rom. 1772-95. 25 voll. 4. Fr. L. 
Graf vy. Stolberg: Geschichte der Religion Jesu. Hamburg. 1806-19. 15 Bde. 8, con- 
tinued by F. v. Kerz. Mainz. 1825, ff. Th.16-38, down to the 12thcentury. Th. Kater- 
kamp’s Kirchengeschichte. Minster. 1819-34. 5 Bde. to 1153. J. N. Locherer’s Gesch. 
d. Christi. Rel. u. Kirche. 9. Thle. Ravensburg. 1824, ff. to 1073. J. N. Hortig’s Hand- 
buch d. Christl. Kirchengesch. beendigt von J. J. J. Dollinger. 2 Bde. Landshut. 1826- 
28. Anew working up of the materials : Déllinger’s Gesch. d. Christ]. Kirche. Bde. 1in2 
Abtheil. Landshut. 1833, 35, partly to 680. J. J. Ritter’s Handb. der Kirchengesch. 
Elberfield. 1826, ff. 3 Bde. to 1792 (Bd. 1 u. 2, Ste Aufl. Bonn. 1854). J. O. Ritter v. 
Rauscher Gesch: der Christlichen Kirche. Salzburg. 1829. 2 Bde. to 313. Jac. Rutten- 
stock Instit. Hist. Eccl. N. T.3 T. Vienne. 1832, ss. to 1517. J. Annegarn Gesch. d. 
Christl. Kirche. Minster. 1842,f. 3 Thle. to 1841. 

Manuals by Matthias Dannenmayr (Institatt. h. e. N. T. Vienne. 1788, ed. 2, 1806. 2 
voll.). Fr. Xav. Gmeiner (Epitome h. e. N. T. 2 voll. ed. 2. Gratz. 1803). Ant. Michl. 
(Christl. K. G. 2 Bde. Miinchen. 1807, 11. 2te Aufl. 1811, 19.) Dollinger. Landshut. 
1836, ff. (Bd. 1 u. Bd. 2. Abthl. 1, partly to 1517). Joh. Alzog (5te Aufl. Mainz. 1854). 


wl 


e. 


# 


oa 
Z 


Ps dys 
* 


INTRODUCTION. §3. RELATION, ETC. 19 


§ 3. 


RELATION OF CHURCH HISTORY TO OTHER HISTORICAL STUDIES. 


Ecclesiastical history forms a part of the general history of 
culture’ and of religion,’ and requires attention to other de- 


partments of study, that we may judge rightly of the import- 


ance of Christianity in relation to general culture, and of its 
contests with other religions. It is scientifically co-ordinate with 
political history,* the history of philosophy,‘ and the history of 
literature,’ with which it stands in so close relationship, that, 
to be fully understood, it can as little dispense with their aid as 
they can dispense with it. Besides, it requires, as other histor- 
1 J. G. Herder’s Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte d. Menschheit. Riga u. Leip- 
_ zig. 1784-91. 4 Thle.8. J. G. Gruber’s Gesch. des Menschl. Geschlechts a. d. Gesichts- 
.punkte der Humanitat. Leipzig. 1806, 7. 2 Bde. 8. 
2 Bernh. Picard Cérémonies et Coutumes Religieuses de tous les peuples du monde. 
Amsterd. 1723-53. 9 vols. fol. F. H. St. Delaunaye Histoire générale et particuliére des 


Religions et du Culte de tous les peuples du monde. Paris. 1791. 2 T. 4. Ch. Meiners 
Allg. Krit. Geschichte der Religionen. Hannover. 1806,7. 2 Bde.8. EF. Mayer Gesch. 


x aller Religionen, als Mythologisches Taschenbuch. Weimar. 1811. 8. 
’ & ‘ 


” » \ > 
~-garten and Semler, and continued by a society of leamed men in Germany and England 


_ 8 Universal History, 60 vols. 8vo. London. 1747-63. Translated into German by Baum- 


({A. L. Schloezer, L. A. Gebbardi, E. Tozen, J: G. Meusel, J. F. Le Bret, F. Riihs, and 
_ others). 1771-1810. A collection of explanatory writings and additions to the Universal 
History wes published at Halle, 1747-65, in 6 Theile 4to. 

History of the European States, published by A. H. L. Heeren and F. A. Ukert. Ham- 
burg. 1829, ff. Up to the present time have appeared—History of the Germans, by J. C. 
Pfister, 5 vols.; of the Austrian empire, by J. Count Mailath, 5 vols.; of the Prussian 
empire, by G. A. H. Stenzel, 5 vols. ; Saxony, by C. W. Boettiger, 2 vols.; Portugal, by 
H. Schaefer, 5 vols.; Spain, by F. W. Lembke, 1 vol.; France, by E. Al. Schmidt, 4 
vols.; France in the time of the Revolution, by W. Wachsmuth. 4 vols.; Italy, by H- 
Leo, 5 vols.; England, by J. M. Lappenberg, 2 vols.; the Netherlands, by Van Kampen, 
2 vols.; Denmark, by F. C. Dahlmann, 3 vols.; Sweden, by E. G. Geijer, 3 vols.; Poland, 
by R. Ropell, 2 vol.; Russia, by Ph. Strahl, 2 vols.; the Osmans, by Zinkeisen, 1 vol. 
©. F. Schlosser’s Weltgeschichte in zusammenhangender Erzahlung, 4 volumes are 
already published in seven parts (down to the year 1409).. Frankf. on the Maine, 1815- 

* 41. 8vo. : 

* Jac. Brackeri Historia Critica Philosophiae. Lips. 1741-67. 6 Bde. 4. D. Tiede- 
manns’s Geist der Speculativen Philosophie. Marb. 1791-97. 6 Bde. 8. J. G. Buhle’s 
Lehrbuch der Gesch. der Philosophie. Gdtt. 1796-1804. 8 Thle. 8. The same author's 
Gesch. der neuern Philosophie seit der Epoche d. Wiederherstellung d. Wissensch. 
Ebend. 1800-5. 6 Bde. 8. W.G. Tennemann’s Gesch. d. Philosophie. Leipzig. 1798- 
1820. 11 Bde. 8. H. Ritter’s Gesch. der Philosophie. (Th. 5 u. 12 Gesch. der Christl. 
Philosophie.) Hamburg. 2te Aufl. 1837—1854. 

5 L. Wachler’s Allgem. Gesch. der Literatur. 3te Umarbeitung. Frankf. a. M. 1833. 
4 Thle. gr. 8. 


an here 





~ 


¥ 


‘Ce 


” ne > SES Ger 


P~ 
~ 


5 ion BA 


eo tele Th 


oe ik ee 8 


i it tt nn meal ot Die, Set in| 


20 INTRODUCTION. § 3. RELATION, ETC. 


ical studies do, historical geography,® chronology,’ philology,® 
diplomatics, numismalics, heraldry, and derives special assist 
ance from ecclesiastical geography and statistics.*° 


© For this the following dre useful :—Chr. Krase’s Atlas zur Gesch. aller Europ. Larder 
u. Staaten von ihrer ersten Bevolkerung an bis auf die neuesten Zeiten. 6te Ausg. Halle. - 
1841. Hfte. fol. K.v. Spruner’s Historisch-Geographischer Handatlas. Gotha.- 1837, 
ff. bis jetzt 6 Lieferungen in 47 Charten. 

7 The general works on chronology: J. Ch. Gatterer’s Abrisz der Chronologie. Goté 

ingen. 1777. 8. L’Art de vérifier les Dates des Faits Historiques, &c., par un religieux 
Bénédictin. Paris. 1750. 3 Thle. 4. -In the latest edition it appeared par M. Viton de 
Suint-Alais in two parts; L’Art, &c. avant l’ére Chrétierine, 5 Tomes; L’ Art, &c. depuis 
la Naissance de notre Seigneur, 18 Tomes. Paris. 1818 u. 19. 8. Dr. L. Ideler’s Hand- 
buch der mathemat. u. technischen Chronologie. 2 Bde. Berlin. 1825, 26. The same 
author's Lehrbuch der Chronologie. Ebend. 1831. Dr. Ed. Brinekmeier’s prakt. Hand- 
buch der Histor. Chronologie. Leipzig. 1843. 
In addition to the well-known chronological distinctions ab urbe condita, according te 
the consuls, emperors, &c., the following eras are important in church history. Aera con- 
tractionum or Seleucidaram, beginning B.c. 312, 1st October, formerly the most coramoi> 
in the east, and to this day the ecclesiastical era of the Syrian Christians. Aera Hispanica 
begins 716 A.U.c., 38 B.c., abolished in Spain in the fourteenth century, in Portugal not until 
1415. Aera Diocletiana or aera Martyram, begins 29th August, a.D. 284, used in the Chris- 
tian Roman empire, and still current among the Copts. Cyclus indictionum, a fifteer 
years’ cycle constantly recurring, which first began on the 1st September, 312, but in the 
middle ages assumed the usual commencement of the year. Aera Constantinopolitana 
reckons after the creation of the world, the Ist September, 5508 B.c., since the council of 
rulla (692), in civil use among the Greeks, among the Russians abolished in 1700. Be- 
sides the different commencements of the year must be noticed in the reckoning of time. 
Comp. Ideler’s Handbuch ii. 325, ff. 

8 For the later Greek and Latin generally: C. du Fresne Glossariumi ad Scriptores 
mediae et infimae Graccitatis. Lugd. 1688.2 Tom. fol. C. du Fresne Glossar. ad Scriptores 
mediae et infimae Latinitatis. Edit. nova opera et stud. Monachoram ord. S. Bened- 
Paris. 1733-36. 6 voll. fol. P. Carpentier Glossar. novam ad Scriptores med. aeyi cunt 
Latinos tam Gallicos. Paris. 1766. 4 voll. fol. Glossar. manuale ad Scriptores mediae 
et infimae Latinitatis, (by J. C. Adelung.) Hal. 1772-84. 6 voll. 8. Here also belong all 
glossaries for the dialects of the middle ages. As every department of life and science 
has its peculiar ideas and expressions, so in like manner the Christian church. For this 
ecclesiastical and theological terminology, which can not, indeed, fitly lay the foundation 
of an ecclesiastical philology as a peculiar study, comp. J. C. Suiceri Thesaurus Ecclesias- 
ticus e patribus Graecis. Second edition. Amsterd. 1728. 2 vols. fol. C. L. Baueri Glos- 
sarium Theodoreteum, appended to Schulz’s edition of Theodoret (Halle. 1774), and Index 
latinitatis Tertullianeae, by Schiitz and Windorf, annexed to Semler’s edition of Tertullian 
(Halle. 1776). 

® General works on Diplomatics: J. Mabillon De Re Diplomatica, ed. 2. Paris. 1709. , 
Supplem. 1704. Nouveau Traité de Diplomatique par deux relig. Bénédictins de la Congr. 
de St. Maur. (Toustain et Tassin.) Paris. 1750-65. 6 voll. 4. Gatterer’s Abriss der 
Diplomatik. Gott. 1798.8. K.T.G.Schonemann’s Vollstandiges System der Allgemeines 
Diplomatik. Hamb. 1801. 2 Bde. 8. 

% Caroli a S. Paulo Geographia Sacra s. notitia antiqua dioeceseon omnium veteris 
ecclesiae, cur. J. Clerico. Amstel. 1703. fol. Fr. Spanhemii Geograph. Sacra et Eccles. 
(Opp. T. i. Lugd. Bat. 1701.) ‘Bingham Origg. Eccl. lib. ix. For later times: K. F 
Staudlin’s Kirchl. Geographie u. Statistik. Tibingen. 1804. 2 Thle. 8. Kirchl. Statistik 
von Dr. Jul. Wiggers. 2 Bde. Hamburg u. Gotha. 1842. 

Atlas Antiquus Sacer, ecclesiasticus et profanus, collectus ex tabulis geographicis Nic. 


ENTRODUCTION. § 4. SOURCES OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 2 


§ 4. 
OF THE SOURCES OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 


The sources of ecclesiastical history, like those of every other 
history, may be traced back to private testimony, original doc- 
wments, and monuments. 'To the first belong not only the rec- 
ords of ecclesiastical events which are original to us,' and 
biographies of remarkable persons in the history of Christianity, 
particularly of hierarchs* and saints,* but also other works of 
Christian writers, especially the theological,’ and even many 


Sansonis. Tabulas emendavit J. Clericus. Amstel. 1705. fol. Atlas Sacer s. Ecclesias- 
ticus descriptus a J. E. Th. Wiltsch. Gotha.° 1843. fol. 

1 Literary History of Ecclesiastical History, see C. Sagittarii Introductiodn Historiam 
Ecclesiasticam. Jenae. 1718.. Tom. i. 4, with the supplements in fom. ii. (curante J. A. 
Schmidio, 1718, p. 1-706.) Ch. W. F. Walch’s Grandsitze der.zur Kirchenhistorie des N. 
T. néthigen Vorbereitungslehren u. Biicherkenntniss. Gétt. 1773. 8. Schréckh’s Kirch- 
engesch. Bd. 1.8. 141, ff C.F. Staudlin’s Geschichte u. Literatur der Kirchengesch. 
herausgeg. v. J.T. Hemsen. Hannover. 1627. 8. -Comp.'the works abeut to be quoted in 
Note 4 below. 

2 Especially of the popes. The oldest collection of the biographies of them is Anastasii 
Bibliothecarii (abbot in Rome about 870) Liber Pontificalis. This, together with the fol- 
lowing collections, has been inserted in Muratorii Rerum Ital. Scriptores, T. iii. 

3 Existing in great numbers, but only to be used with great caution. Acta Sanctormn, 
quotquot toto orbe coluntur. Antverp. 1643-1794. 53 vols. fol. A work of the Antwerp 
Jesuits—Jo. Bolland (he began it; hence the publishers are called Bollandists), God. 
Henschenius, Dan. Papebrochius, &c., arranged according to the days of the month. The 
53d volume contains the 6th of October. The apparatus collected for the werk, which-was 
long unknown, to avhich alone about 700 MSS. belong, came;to Brussels from the abbey 
Tongerloo, in the Bibliothéque de Bourgogne. Since 1839 the. Jesuits have been working 
upon the continuation in Tongerleo at the expense of the Belgian government. De 
Prosecutione Operis Bollandiani, quod Acta Sanctorum inscribitur.. Namur. 1838. 8. 
Mémoire sur les Bollandistes par M. Gachard, in the Messager des Sciences et des 
arts de la Belgique. T- iii. (Gand. 1835), p. 200. .On the history of the Bollandists, see 
what is written in the Bonn. Zeitschrift fiir Philos. u. kath. Theol. Heft. 17. 8. 245, ff Heft. 
20..8. 235, ff. 

* Literary collections relating to the fathers : Nouvelle Bibliothéque des Auteurs Ecclé- 
_ siastiques, par L. Ellies du Pin. Paris. 1686-1714. gr. 8, with the continuations : Biblio- 
théque des Auteurs séparés de la Communion de l’Eglise Romaine, du 16 et 17 siécle par 
Ell. du,Pin. Paris, 1718-19. 2 vols., ard the Bibliothéque des Aut. Eccles. du 18 siécle, par 
Claude Pierre Goujet. Paris. 1736-37. 3 vols. gr. 8. Comp. Remarques sur la Biblioth. de 
M. du Pin par Matthieu Petitdidier. Paris. 1691, ss. 3 Tom. 8, and Critique de la Biblioth. 
de M. du Pin, par Rich. Simon. Paris. 1730. 4 Tom. 8. 

Histoire des Auteurs Sacrés et Ecclésiastiques, par BR. Ceillier. Paris. 1729, ff. 24 Thle 
4 (reaching to the thirteenth century). W. Cave, Scriptoram Ecclesiasticoram Historia 
Literaria. Oxon. 1740. Basil: 1741. 2 voll. fol. (to the Reformation). Casp. Oudini 
Commentarius de ,Scriptoribus Ecclesiast. Antiquis. Lips. 1722. 3 voll. fol. (to the year 
4460). J. A, Méhler’s Patrologie, herausgegeben v. Reithmayer. Bd. 1. Regensburg, 





4 





22 INTRODUCTION. § 4. SOURCES OF ECCLESIASTICAL BISTORY. 


writings proceeding from persons not Christians, who came in 
eontact with Christians. 

Among the original documents the following must be partic- 
ularly examined: the laws of different states, as far as they 
have exerted an influence on the Christian church, or have 
themselves arisen under the influences of the church itself; the 
acts and ordinances of ecclesiastieal councils ;° the official 
writings of the heads of churches, especially of the popes ;° the 
rules of monastic orders ;' confessions of faith, liturgies, &c.* 
Monuments are ecclesiastical buildings, monuments of the dead, 


1840. J. Chr. F. Bahr die christl. romische Theologie. Carlsruhe. 1837, and his Gesch. de 
rémischen Literatur im karolingischen Zeitalter, 1840 (a second and third supplementary 
volume, to his History of Roman Literature). . 

J. A. Fabricii Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica. Hamb. 1718. fol. Ejusd. Biblioth. Latina 
mediae et infimae Aetatis. Hamb. 1734-46. 6 vols. 8 (enlarged by Mansi. Patav. 1754. 3 
vols. 4), also Fabricii Biblioth. Graeca (Hamb. 1705, ss. voll. xiv. 4, ed. nova variorum curis 
emendatior curante G. Ch. Harless. Hamb. 1790-1809. vol. xii. 4, incomplete), and 
Biblioth. Latina (ed. 4. Hamb. 1722. 3 Tomi. 8. auct. ed. J.. A. Ernesti. Lips. 1773, 74. 3 
Tom. 8), contain accounts of ecclesiastical authors. A Supplement to the last work is 
presented in C. T. G. Schoenemanni Biblioth. Hist. Literaria Patrum Latim. a Tertulliano 
usque ad Gregor. M. Tomiii. Lips. 1792, 94. 8. 

Patres ecclesiae are, in the opinion of Catholies, the orthodex ecclesiastical writers. as 
far as the thirteenth century (these, however, are not of normal authority, like the 
Doctores Ecclesiae, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Gregory the Great, Thomas Aquinas, 
and Bonaventura). Protestants usually restrict the appellation to the first six centuries, 
as the purer period of the church. The works of the fathers not included in separate 
collections are found in the large collections, such as: Magna Bibliotheea vett. Patrum. 
Paris. 1654. 17 Tomi. fol. Maxima Bibliotheca vett, Patrum. Lugdun. 1677. 27 Tomi. fol. 
Andr. Gallandii Biblioth. vett. Patruam. Venetiis. 1765, ss. 14 Tomi. fol. 

5 Chr. W. F. Walch Entwurf einer Vollstindigen Geschichte der Kirchenversamm, 
lungen. Leipzig. 1759. 8. Sagittarianae Introductionis in Histor. Eccl. Tom. ii. curante 
J. A. Schmidio (Jenae. 1718), p. 707. 

Collections of the proceedings of general councils : Concilioram omnium collectio Regia- 
Paris. 1644. 37 vols. fol. Sacrosancta Coneilia—stud. Ph, Labbei et Gab. Cossarti. Paris. 
1672. 18 vols. fol. (with a supplementary volume by Baluzius. Paris. 1683). Conciliorum 
collectio Regia maxima stud. J. Harduini.. Paris. 1715. 12 vols. fol. Sacrosaneta Concilia 
—curante Nicol. Coleti. Wenet. 1728, ss. 23 vols. fol. (with the supplementum, by J. Dom. 
Mansi. Lucae. 1748. 6 vols. fol.) Sacrorum Concilioram noya et amplissima collectio. 
Car. J.D. Mansi. Florent. et Venet. 1759, ss. 31 vols. fol., extending to 1509. 

6 Bullarium Romanum. Luxemb. 1727. 19 vols. fol. Bullariam amplissima collectio 
op. Car. Coquelines, from the seventh volume onward, with the title, Bullariuam Romanum 
s. novissima collectio Apostolicarum Constitutionum. Romae. 1739, ss. 14 Tomi in 28 
Partt. fol., with the continuation, Bullarium Magnum Romanum Summorum Pontificum 
Clementis XIE. et XIV., Pii VI: et VIL, Leonis XTI., et Pii VIII. Romae. 1833, ss. 89 


_ fase. fol. 


7 Lucae Holstenii Codex Regularum Monasticarum. (Rom. 1661. 3 voll. 4), auctus a 
Mar. Brockie. Aug. Vind. 1759. 6 voll. fol. 

8 J. A. Assemani Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiae Universae. Rom. 1749.13 voll. 4. L.A. 
Muratorii Liturgia Romana vetus. Venet. 1748. 2 voll. fol. Eus. sai green Liturgiarum 
Orientalium Collectio. Paris. 1716. 2 voll. 4. 


INTRODUCTION. § 5. USE OF THE SOURCES. 23 


stone inscriptions, and other works which art has produced in 
the service of the church. 


§ 5. 
USE OF THE SOURCES. 


The object of investigations in church history is to reproduce, 
directly from the original sources, the facts belonging to the sphere 
of the church, in its external and internal life, in their manifesta- 
tions as well as their grounds, and also in their causal connec- 
tions. or this purpose the historian requires not only a pene- 
trating and unbiased interpretation of the sources which present 
themselves, but also historical criticism, to enable him to judge 
of the genuineness, integrity, and credibility of the sources, not 
only in general, but in each particular case. This criticism 
must be the more watchful, since distortions of historical truth 
frequently appear in the province of ecclesiastical history, pro- 
duced by credulity and ignorance, by prejudice and _ partisan- 
ship, by the desire to adapt it to certain ends, and even by de- 
ceit. In those cases in which the sources afford nothing at all, 
or what is false, relative either to single facts or their causal 
connection, the inquirer must have recourse to historical con- 
jectures, whose probability may border very nearly on truth, 
but often, perhaps, may rise very little above other possibilities. 
In forming such historical conjectures, he must be guided by a 
careful consideration of existing relations, of the character of 
the period and persons, by analogy, and even by the false data 
of the sources. The ecclesiastical historian must renounce party 
interest, as well as prejudices arising from the peculiarities of 
his time. On the other hand, he can not penetrate into the in 
ternal character of the phenomena-of church history without 
a Christian religious spirit, because one can not generally com- 
prehend aright any strange spiritual phenomenon without re- 
producing it in himself. It is only investigation of this nature 
that can discover where the Christian spirit is entirely wanting, 

* Ernesti de fide historica recte acstimanda (in his Opusculis Philologico-Criticis, ed. 2. 


Lugd. Bat. 1776. p. 64, ss.) Griesbachii Diss. de fide hist. ex ipsa rerum quae narrantur 
natura judicanda (in his Opuse. Acad. ed Gabler. Jenae. 1824. vol. i. p. 167, ss.) 


§ 
3 
: 
J 
F 
: 
; 
a) 
Y 





24 INTRODUCTION. § 6. ARRANGEMENT OF MATERIALS. 


where itis used merely as a mask, and what other spirit has 
taken its place. Wherever it exists it will not be mistaken, al- 
though it should manifest itself in such ways as are foreign to 
the spirit of our own times. 


§ 6. 


ARRANGEMENT OF THE MATERIALS OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.— 
HISTORIC REPRESENTATION. 


The old methods of arranging the materials of ecclesiastical] 
history according to years, or of dividing them into centuries, 
have been rightly abandoned. ‘The division into periods, by 
means of epochs, has been generally adopted, although great 
difference prevails in fixing these periods. We assume four 
periods: the first, To the time of Constantine, the first develop- 
ment of the church under external oppression ; the second, Till 
the beginning of: the image controversies, the development of 
Christianity as the previiit religion of the state; the third, 
Till the Reformation, the development of the  seawtot peers 
over the state; the fourth, The development of Protestantism.’ 
The contents of each period may be arranged either chronologi- 
eally or according to a general scheme taken from the different 
relations of the church. (§ 2.) Both methods used exclusively 
have their advantages and disadvantages. In the chronological 
arrangement things similar are often too widely separated, and 
the Hinds of datelgnauant are torn asunder. In the other arrange- 
ment, when the periods are large, the mutual influence which 
the development of separate ecclesiastical relations has on each 
other at different times is obscured; and the survey of the entire 
condition of one particular time is rendered difficult. We must 
therefore endeavor, as far as possible, to unite the advantages of 
both methods, and to avoid their disadvantages. Although 
every period has its definite ecclesiastical character, yet this 


1 The following have been used as epochs by different ecclesiastical historians, for the 
purpose of limiting their periods :—The destruction of Jerusalem, 70; Commencement of 
Constantine’s reign, 306, or the Council of Nice, 325; Gregory the Great, 604, or Muham- 
med, 622; Boniface, the Apostle of the Germans, 715, or the beginning of the image 
controversy, 725; Charlemagne, 800; Gregory VII., 1073; Removal of the papal residence 
to Avignon, 1305; Reformation 1517: Founding of the University of Halle, 1693. 


INTRODUCTION. §7. VALUE OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 25 


we 


character undergoes many modifications during the lapse of the 
whole period. Hence the division of periods into small sections 
of time is justified. The materials of these smaller sections are 
best arranged chronologically, as long as the chureh in its first 
beginnings has not yet formed its internal relations; afterward 
they may be disposed according to a division taken from these 
internal relations. In every section of time there prevails the 
development of one or of several ecclesiastical relations, so that 
the development of all the other relations of the church is thereby 
controlled. It is therefore suitable to dispose the history of the 
different relations in the church in every minor period, according 
to their relative importance, and their influence on the whole. 

The mode of writing ecclesiastical history must be worthy of 
the subject. The phenomena make a continual demand upon 
our moral and religious feelings. Where moral greatness is 
manifested, they excite our admiration; where they bear wit- 
ness to errors, they excite our compassion; where they evince 
immoral designs and motives, they stir up our indignation ; but 
they never furnish a fit subject for ridicule. 


! 


§ qT: 
VALUE OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 


Church history has a universal interest for men, as it forms 
the most important part of the religious history of humanity, 
For the Christian it has a peculiar interest, since it discloses to 
him the later transformations of Christianity, with their causes 
and effects, and guides him to a safe judgment with regard to 
what is original and essential in it.’ On this account, it is in- 
dispensable to the Christian theologian who desires to acquire a 
scientific knowledge of Christianity,? It is also of importance 

1 J. J. Griesbach De Historiae Ecclesiasticae nostri seculi usibus sapienter accommo- 
datae utilitate. Jen. 1776. 4 (in his Opusc. Acad. ed. Gabler. vol. i. p. 318). Respecting 
the influence of the study of church history on the culture of the mind, and the life, see 
Dree Vorlesungen von Dr. F. A. Koethe. Leipzig. 1810. 4. 

2 J. A. Ernesti De Theologiae historicae et dogmaticae conjungendae necessitate et modo 
universo (in his Opusce. Theoll. p. 565). Niemeyer’s Abhandl. iiber die hohe Wichtigkeit 
u. die zweckmassige Methode eines fortgesetzten Studiums der Religions- u. Kirchen- 


geschichte fiir prakt. Religionslehrer (prefixed to Fuhrmann’s Handwérterbuch der Christi. 
Religions- und Kirchengesch Bd. 1. Halle. 1826. 8). 


26 INTRODUCTION. §7. VALUE OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 


to the scholar, because of its essential connection with the his- 
tory of learning, philosophy, morals, and the arts. It is obvious, 
that a fundamental acquaintance with ecclesiastical law, and 
the legislative enactments of Christian states, is impossible 
without it.* 

3 J. H. Boehmer Diss. de necessitate et utilitate Stud. Hist. Ecclesiast. in juris ecclesi- 


astici prudentia (in the Observatt. sell. ad Pet. de Marca libr. de concordia sacerdotii et 
imperii. Francof. 1708. fol.) 


FIRST PERIOD. 


TO THE SOLE REIGN OF CONSTANTINE, BY WHICH THE RECOGNITION 
OF THE CHURCH WAS SECURED IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE. 
FROM THE YEAR 1-324. 


SOURCES. 


I. The Scriptures of the New Testament. 

II. Ecclesiastical historians. Fragments of Hegesippus (about 
170 a.v.) drouvjpata Tov éxxAnoractinay mpdésewv (with a com- 
mentary in Routh Relig. Saer., vol. i. p. 187, ss.). 

Eusebius (bishop of Caesarea + about 340) éxxAnocactixg iotopia 
in ten books,’ ed. H. Valesius. Par. 1659. fol. (an incorrect 
reprint, Mogunt. 1672), ed. ii. 1677 (reprinted Amsterdam, 
1695. fol.).. Convenient smaller editions by F. A. Stroth. 
Hal. 1779. Tom.i. 8. E. Zimmermann. PP.II. Francof. 
ad M. 1822. 8., cum Valesii commentario aliorumque ob- 
servationibus edidit, suas animadversiones, excursus et indices 
adjecit F. A. Heiniehen. T. ii. Lips. 1827, 28. 8. ad 
codd. Mss. rec. Ed. Burton. Oxon. 1838. T. ii. 8. The 
Latin version of Eusebius’s Church History, by Rufinus 
(about a.p. 400), in nine books (the tenth was not translated 
by him), with its continuation in two books (Rujfini hist. eccl. 
libb. xi.), which was very common in the fifteenth and six- 
teenth centuries, but of which there is no edition since that of 
Petr. Thom. Cacciari. Romae. 1740-41. Tomi ii. 4to., 


1 With regard to the credibility of Eusebius, which has been too much depreciated by 
Scaliger, Baronius, Masch (Abb. v. d. Grandsprache d. Evangel. Matth. Halle. 1755. 
S. 191), Gibbon and Semler (Novae Observatt., p. 17, and often), see J. Moeller de fide 
Eusebii Caesar. Hafnae. 1813. 8. (reprinted in Staudlin’s and Tzchirner’s Archiv. f 
Kirchengesch. Bd. 3. St. 1). J. T. L. Danz de Eusebio Caes. ejusque fide hist. recte 
aestimanda. P.i. Jenae. 1815.8. Ch. A. Kestner Comm. de Eusebii auctoritate et fide 
diplomatica. Gdetting. 1817. 4. H. Reuterdahl de Fontibus Hist. Eccles. Busebianae. 
Londini Gothor. 1826. 8. Bern. Rienstra de Fontibus, ex quibus hist. eccl. opus hausit 
Eusebius Pamph. et de ratione, qua iis usus est. Traj. ad Rhen. 1833. 8. Dr. C. RB. 
Jachmann’s Remarks on the Church History of Eusebius, in Illgen’s Zeitschrift fir die 
histor. Theol. ix. ii. 10. 


Me Pe ek Oe oe 


2 corey ur 


Rh bs iin 


£8 FIRST PERIOD.—A.D. 1-324. 


which was founded on eritical principles, is frequently a work 
upon Eusebius rather than a translation. Still it is not un- 
important in the criticism of the original (comp. E. J. Kim- 
melii de Rufino Eusebii interprete, libb. ii. Gerae. 1838. 
8). With ihe history of Eusebius are connected, even in 
the editions of Valesius and Zimmermann, his ei¢ tov Biov tov 
pakapiov Kwvotarrivov tov Bactdéwe Ady 0’,” ed. F. A. Heini- 
chen. Lips. 1830. 8. 

OL. All the Christian writers of this period. The fragments 
of those whose works have been lost are collected in J. E. 
Grabe spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et haereticorum saeculi i. 
ii. et ili. ‘Tom.i.s. Saec. i. ed. 2. Oxon. 1700. Saec. ii. 
t.i. 1700. 8. (A new edition in 3 ‘Tom. Oxon. 1714.) 
M. Jos. Routh reliquiae sacrae, sive auctorum fere jam perdi- 
torum secundi tertiique saeculi fragmenta, quae supersunt 
Oxonii. 1814-18. 4 voll. 8. vol. 5, 1848. 

IV. Acts of the martyrs. ‘Theod. Ruinart acta primorum Mar- 
tyrum sincera et selecta. Edit. 2. Amsteled. 1713. fol. 
(ed. Bern. Galura. August. Vindel. 1802, 3. P. iii. 8). 
[Fox’s Book of Martyrs.] 

Y. Certain passages of writers not Christian, namely, Josephus, 
Suetonius, Tacitus, Plinius the younger, Scriptores historiae 
Augustae, Dio Cassius, and others, are collected in Nath. 
Lardner’s Collection of the Jewish and Heathen Testimonies 
of the Christ. Relig. Lond. 1764-67. 4 vols. 4. 


WORKS. 


Sebastien le Nain de Tillemont Mémoires pour seryir 4 |’His- 
toire Ecclésiastique des six premiers siécles, justifiés par les 
citations des auteurs eriginaux. Paris. 1693-1712. 16 
Thle. 4; reaches to 513. [Tillemont’s Ecclesiastical Me- 
moirs of the first six centuries, translated from the French. 


2 The doubts that were raised against the genuineness of these books by Jac. Gothofredus 
(Diss. ad Philostorg. Hist. Eccl., lib. vii. c. 3) and Chr. Sandius (de Scriptt. Eccl., p. 92) 
have been refuted by J. A. Bosii, exercit. posterior de Pontificatu max. Imp. Rom. C. 8. 
§5. M. Hankius de Byzantin. reram scriptoribus graecis, §174. Balth. Bebelii Antiquitt. 
Eccl. t. i. p.213. In regard to the historical character of this work even Socrates (hist 
eccl. i. ¢. 1) designates Eusebius as tov éxaivwy Tod Bacthéws Kai Tig NavnyupiKyg 
Sb7yopiac TGV Aéyov ud2dAov O¢ év bycwply dpovticac, } Tepi Tob axpiBGc wEpLAaBeivy 
2 yevoueva. 


FIRST PERIOD.~A.D, 1-324. 29 


2 vols. fol. Lond. 1733.]. Joh. Laur. Moshemii commentarii 
de Rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum Magn. Helmst. 
1753. 4. [Vol. i. translated by Vidal; vol. ii. by Dr. Mur- 
dock, New York, 1852.] Joh. Sal. Semleri commentarius hist. 
de antiquo Christ. statu. Halae. 1771, 72. T. 2.8. Ejusd. 
Observatt. novae, quibus Historia Christianorum studiosius il- 
lustratur usque ad Const. M. MHalae. 1784. 8. 
On tne spread and persecution of Christianity : 

[Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.}. Ed. Gib- 
bon die Ausbreit. des Christenthums aus natirl. Ursachen, 
tibers. v. A. F. v. Walterstern. Hamb. 1788. 8. J. B. 
Liiderwald Ausbreitung der Christl. Religion. Helmst. 
1788. 8. J. Andrei Entwickel. der natiirl. Ursachen, welche 
die schnelle Ausbreit. des Christenth. beforderten. _Helmst. 
1792. 8. 

Chr. Kortholt de Persecutionibus Eccles. primaevae.  Kiloni. 
1689. 4. C. W. F. Walch de Persecutionibus Christian. 
non solum politicis sed etiam religiosis. (Nov. Comment. 
Soc. Goett. T. ii.) J. G. F. Papst de ipsorum Christianorum 
culpa in vexationibus motis a Romanis. 3 Progr. Er- 
langen. 1789, 90. 4. C. D. A. Martini Persecutiones 
Christianorum sub Impp. Romanis, causae earum et effectus. 
Rostochii. 1802, 1803. Comm. iii. 


30 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D. 1-117. 


: FIRST DIVISION. 
TO THE TIME OF HADRIAN. FROM 1-117. 


Joh. Laur. Moshemii Institutiones Historiae Christianae Majores, Saec. 1. Helmst. 173% 
4, J.S.Semler’s neue Versuche die Kirchenhistor. des ersten Jahrhunderts aufzukliren, 
Leipzig. 1788. 8 (J. A. Starck’s Geschichte der christlichen Kirche des. ersten Jahr- 
hunderts Berlin und Leipzig. 1779-80. 3 Bde. 8. 


INTRODUCTION. 


OF THE CONDITION OF THE WORLD, ESPECIALLY ITS RELIGIOUS AND 
MORAL STATE, AT THE TIME OF CHRIST’S BIRTH, AND DURING THE 
FIRST CENTURY. 


I. 


CONDITION OF THE HEATHEN NATIONS. 


©. I. Nitzsch tb, den Religionsbegriff der Alten, in the theol. Studien und Kritiken, Bd. 1 
8. 527, ff 725, ff IF. V. Reinhard’s Versuch iiber den Plan, den der Stifter der christl. 
Religion zum Besten der Menschheit entwarf. Wittenberg. 1781. 4te Aufl. 1798. 8, 
[Translated into English, and published at Andover, 1831, 12mo.] A. Tholuck tiber das 
‘Wesen und den sittlichen Einfluss des Heidenthums, besonders unter den Griechen u, 
Romern, mit Hinsicht auf das Christenthum (in A. Neander’s Denkwirdigkeiten aus 
der Geschichte des Christenthumis und des christlichen Lebens. Bd.1. Bertin, 1823. 
{Translated in the American Biblical Repository for 1832, by Professor Emerson.] 
Neander’s Kirchengesch. I. I. 7, ff. Especially: Der Fall des Heidenthums von Dr. 
H. G. Tzschirner, herausg. v. M. C. W. Niedner. Bd. 1. (Leipzig, 1829) S. 13, ff [Le- 
land’s Advantage and Necessity of the Christian Revelation.] 


§ 8. 


The Roman empire, in the first century, extended not only 
over the whole civilized world, but almost over the known world, 
Beyond it little was known besides. the Germanic tribes in the 
north, and the Parthians in the east. In the western half of 
that great empire, the language and customs of the Romans had 
become prevalent ; but in the eastern, Greek cultivation asserted 
the superiority it had obtained since Alexander’s conquests, and 
under the emperors penetrated more and more even into Rome.' 


1 Cicero pro Archia, c. 10; Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus, Latina suis finibus, 
exiguis sane, continentur. How the Greek had incorporated itself with the language of 
conversation among cultivated Romans, may be setn in Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, and 


INTRODUCTION L—HEATHEN NATIONS. §9. 31. 


It is obvious, how much the union of so many nations under one 
government, and the general diffusion of the Greek language, 
must have favored the heralds of Christianity. 


§ 9. 


OF THE RELIGIOUS AND MORAL CHARACTER OF THE ANCIENT 
" NATIONS IN GENERAL. 


Polytheism can not, from its very nature, be favorable to mos 
rality. Its deities can only be finite beings, and resembling 
man, because it separates the divinity into many parts. Every 
nation gives expression to its character, its virtues, and its vices, 
in the deities it worships; and therefore the divinity, so disfig- 
ured, can not lead men to a higher moral elevation. The hea- 
then stand only in an external relation to their gods; and their 
entire religion is consequently nothing more than an external 
worship, which leaves untouched not only theological specula- 
tion, as long as it does not attack existing forms, but also moral 
sentiment. Human deities will be worshiped, propitiated, and 
reconciled, in the way of men; and for this purpose moral ele- 
vation is not needed so much as a kind of prudence. They can 
not inspire respect and love, but fear only. Their worship is 
nothing more than a barter, in which man expects mercy, pro- 
tection, and greater gifts, in exchange for demonstrations of re- 
spect, and offerings. This general character of polytheism is 
found in all heathen religions at the time of Christ. A mythol- 
ogy partly immoral, sanctified many vices by the example of the 
gods. ‘The worship of several deities was attended with immoral 
deeds. ‘Thus, the worship of Bel in Babylon, of Amun in 
- Thebes, of Aphrodite in Cyprus, Corinth, and many other places, 
elevated lewdness to the position of a religious service ;' and the 


in Augustus’s letters in Suetonius, &c., Clandius c. 4. Comp. Ovidii ars amandi ii. 121, 
Dial. de oratoribus c. 29. Juvenal. Satyr. iii. 58. xv. 110, vi. 185, ss. speaking of the 
Roman ladies :— 
Nam quid Fanaiaion: quam quod se non putat ulla 
Formosam, nisi quae de Tusca Graecula facta est? 
ae. Hoc sermone pavent, hoc iram, gaudia, curas, 
ws Hoc cuncta effundunt animi secreta. 
2 Clemens Alex. Cohort. ad Gentes, cap. 2. Arnobii Disputatt. adv. Gentes, lib. v 
Tholuck, as above. §. 171, ff. 


vat 


32 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 1-117. 


worship ef other deities excited, at least, sensuality in a high 
degree.? In like manner, human sacrifices were customary, in 
several places, as yearly expiations; but every where, on occa- 
sion of extraordinary threatening dangers, for the purpose of 
propitiating the enraged deities.* Religious motives existed 
only to promote the exercise of the duties belonging to citizens ;* 
and whatever of a higher nature appears in the case of individ- 
ual Greeks and Romans was owing, not to the religion of the 
people, but to their better moral nature.’ ‘In general, the feel- 
ing of man’s dignity and rights was wanting, while in place of 
it was found nothing but a partial national conceit, joined to a 
profound contempt for every thing foreign, and propped up by 
religion, since every nation had but the expression of its own 
nationality in its deities. Hencethe horrible debasement of man 
as a slave. When the national pride was humbled by subju- 
gation and oppression, the people readily lost along with it every 
noble feeling of ‘self-respect, and sank into slavish abjectness. 
Woman lost among the Greeks the respect due to her, becayse 
of her political insignificance, since public virtue was deemed 
of the highest importance with that people.’ Among eastern 
nations, polygamy had the same effect to a much greater 
extent. 


2 Tholuck, as above, 8. 143, ff. 

3 Tholuck, 8. 221, ff. Octavian caused 300 men to be slaughtered on the altar of Caesar. 
(Sueton. Oct.c. 15, Dio Cassius, 48,14). Sextus Pompeius ordered that persons should be 
thrown into the sea as a sacrifice to Neptune (Dio Cassius, 48, 48). According to Porphyry, 
de abstin. carnis, li. c. 56, human sacrifices ceased to be offered in different nations at the 
time of Hadrian; but even in his day (about 280 A.D.) a human victim was yearly offered 
to Jupiter Latialis in Rome. Lactantius (about 300) Divin. Institt. i. c. 21: Latialis 
Jupiter etiam nunc sanguine colitur humano. Comp. Lipsius de Ampbith..c. 4. (Opp. 
iii. 1003), van Dale de Oraculis Gentilium, p. 442. Lamb. Bos, Heidenreich, Pott ad 1 
Cor. iv. 13. 

* Cicero de Legibus, ii. c. 7: Utiles esse autem opiniones has, quis neget, cum intelligat, 
quam multa firmentur jurejurando; quantae salutis sint foederum religiones ; quam multos 
divini supplicii metus a scelere revecarit ; quamque sancta sit societas civium inter ipsos, 
diis immortalibus interpositis tum judicibus, tum testibus. 

5 As Cicero, de fin. ii. c. 25, judges of Epicurus and his philosophy. 

6 Tholuck, S. 197, ff Gladiators. As late as the time of Claudius, that emperor was 
obliged to forbid the exposing or putting to death sick slaves. Suetonius in Claudius, 
“Cap. 25. 

7 Tholuck, 8, 203, ££ 


INTRODUCTION IL—HEATHEN NATIONS. §10.GREEKS. 33 


§ 10. 


RELIGION AND MORALS OF THE GREEKS. 


Histoire de la civilisation morale et religieuse des Grecs par P. van Limburg Brouwer. 
Tom. 8. Groeningen, 1833-43. 8vo. 


The Greek deities were ideal Greeks, whose sentiments and 
conduct were Grecian. By their will and example they ex- 
horted to those virtues to which the Grecian character was dis- 
posed, or which were found necessary for the state and for social 
life. But so far were they from imaging forth a pure morality, 
and so little freed from the national vices of the Greeks,! that 
the mythology granted even by the Greek philosophers was 
able, for the most part, to influence morality only in the way 
of injury.? After the subjugation of Greece, when national 
honor, love of country, and patriotism had ceased to be powerful 
motives, we find Greece in the condition of the deepest moral] 
degradation. Religion became with the people scarcely any thing 
but an enjoyment of art, wanting too often in all that partakes 
of a moral spirit. Hence it was unable to elevate the deterio- 
rated nation above their external destiny. How much the culti- 
vation of the intellect and taste was preferred to morality, even 
in the flourishing times of Greece, is proved by the general es- 
timation in which clever courtesans were held; while the rest 
of the female sex were, for the most part, neglected, as far as 


1 In opposition to Tholuck, in the work already quoted, who traces the corruption of relig- 
ion and morality to Grecian art, see Fr. Jacobs iber die Erziehung der Hellenen zur Sitt- 
lichkeit, in his vermischte Schriften, Th. 3, An intermediate course is taken by Dr. C. 
Grineisen iber das Sittliche der bildenden Kunst bei den Griechen, in Illgen’s Zeitschrift 
£. d. hist. Theologie, iii. ii. 1. But another aspect must not be overlooked. Though it be 
possible that so much elevation and dignity as is represented by some was reflected in the 
divine forms, yet they necessarily referred the beholder to their mythology, and the 
impression that so much immorality could be united with such external excellence 
must have been highly corrupting to the morals. Cf. Augustinus de civ. Dei. iv. 31: 
Varro dicit etiam, antiquos Romanos plus quam annos centum et septuaginta deos sine 
simulacro coluisse.. Quod si adhuc, inquit, mansisset, castius dii observarentur. Cujus 
sententiae suae testem adhibet inter caetera etiam gentem Judaeam, nec dubitat eum 
locum ita concludere, ut dicat, qui primi simulacra deoram populis posuerunt, 60s civita- 
tibus suis et metum dempsisse, et errorem addidisse. 

2 Plato (de repub. ii.) wishes to banish the immoral mythology from his republic; Aris- 
otle (Politic. vii. 8) proposes that the young at least should be excluded from witnessing 
immoral rites. 


VOL, 1.—3 


- 


‘.. 


34 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 1-117. 


their spiritual culture was concerned.’ The love of boys, which 
was so general, and inspired so many poets, shows how art min- 
istered even to unnatural vices. The mysteries were far from 
presenting a better esoteric religion than that of the people.‘ 
They offered nothing but a secret mythology which attached 
itself to the popular religion—a secret ritual to be practiced in 
worshiping the gods—directions for the purification of the ini- 
tiated, spporapadlied, it is true, by several moral precepts, but 
all for the purpose of making the deities peculiarly propitious to 
the initiated. 


“hy 


§ 11. i: 


RELIGION AND MORALS OF THE ROMANS TO THE TIME OF 
AUGUSTUS. 


Ch. D. Beck iiber den Einfluss der rom. Religion auf die Charakter des Volks and des 
Staats (prefixed to his translation of Ferguson’s History of the Roman Republic, Bd. 3, 
Abth. 2, 8. 5, ff). Du polytheisme romain. Ouvrage posthume par Benj. Constant. Paris. 
1833.. Die Religion der homer aus den Quellen dargestellt von J. A. Hartung. 2 Theile, 
Erlangen. 1836. 8vo. 


The religion of the Romans was of a more grave and moral 
character, although in it the Grecian element was mixed up 
with the Etrurian. We find the ancient Romans distinguished 
not only for their political but their domestic virtues, and for a 
chastity rarely found in the bosom of heathenism. As long as 
Grecian art was unknown at Rome, so long, too, did the Gre- 
cian mythology with its poisoning influence remain unknown ;' 
but after the destruction of Carthage and Corinth, the national 
character generally, and the Roman religion along with it, un- 
derwent by degrees a great alteration for the worse.” The 
riches which flowed into the city, the knowledge of Asiatic lux- 


3 Compare the restricting discussions of Fr. Jacobs (Beitrage zur Gesch. d. weibl. 
Geschlechts in Griechenland: 1. allgem. Ansicht der Ehe; 2. die hellen. Frauen; 3. von. 
den Hetaren), Vermischte Schriften. Thl.3. 5.157. 

* As Warburton (the Divine Legation of Moses. Lond. 1742. Translated into German 
by J. Chr. Schmidt... Frankf. u. Leipz. 1751. 3 Bde.), Thi. 1. Bd. 2, and many after him 
assume. On the other side see especially Chr. Aug. Lobeck, Aglaophamus s. de theo- 
giae mysticae Graecorum causis, libb. iii. t.i. Regiomontii Pruss. 1829. 8. 

* Polyb. hist. vi. c. 54. Dionys. Halicarn. Antiquitt. Roman. ii. c. 67, 69. Hartung, i. 
244. J. A. Ambrosch, Studien u. Andeutungen im Gebiete des altrémischen Bodens und 
Caltus. Heft i. (Breslau. 1839). S. 63. 

? Hartung, i. 249. Ambrosch, S. 69. 


Yea 


INTRODUCTION I—HEATHEN NATIONS, §12. ROMANS. 35 


viries, and the mode of instruction followed by Greek masters, 
led to licentiousness and excesses; while the Grecian mythol- 
ogy, incorporated with Grecian art, was diffused by the poets, 
and entirely extinguished the old Roman character with its rigid 
virtue.’ 


§ 12. 
RELIGIOUS TOLERATION OF THE ROMANS. 


It was an universal principle among the ancients, that the 
gods themselves had arranged the peculiar form of their worship - 
in every country. Hence all polytheistic religions were tolerant 
toward each other, as long as every worship confined itself to 
its own people or country. This toleration was also observed 
by the Romans.’ On the other hand, to introduce strange gods 
‘and modes of worship without the sanction of the state was tan- 
tamount to the introduction of a superstition prejudicial to the 
interests of the community.” When, therefore, after the ex- 
tended conquests of the Romans, foreign modes of worship were 
more and more introduced into the city, partly lessening, by 
that means, attachment to the national religion, and partly pro- 
moting even immoral practices, the laws against the sacra pere- 
grina were frequently renewed.’ Religious societies of foreign 


3 Compare Terentii Eunuch. Act iii. Scen. 5, v. 35. Ovid. Tristium ii. v. 287,-ss. Mar- 
tialis, lib. xi. Epigr. 44. Seneca de brevit. vitae, c. 16: Quid aliud est vitia nostra incen- 
dere, quam auctores illis inseribere deos, et dare morbo, exemplo divinitatis, excusatam 
licentiam? Compare de vita beata, c. 26. C. Meiner’s Gesch. des Verfalls der Sitten und 
der Staatsverfassung der Romer. Leipz. 1782. 8. . 

1 Hartung, i. 231. Dr. K. Hoeck’s rém. Geschichte vom Verfalle d. Republik bis zur 
Vollendung der Monarchie unter Constantin. (Braunschwieg. 1842, ff.) Bd. 1. Abth. 2. S. 
216 u. 371. : 

2 Cicero de leg. ii. c. 8: Separatim nemo habessit deos; neve novos, sed -ne advenas, 
nisi publice adscitos, privatim colunto. 

3 Compare, in particular, the extirpation of the Bacchanalian rites in the year 185 B« 
Livius xxxix. c. 8, ss., and the Senatusconsultum de tollendis Bacchanalibus, in the treat- 
ise about to be quoted of Bynkershoek. Valerius Maximus i. 3, de peregrina religione 
rejecta. Cf. Corn. van Bynkershoek de cultu religionis peregrinae apud veteres Romanos 
(in ejusd. opp. omn. ed. Ph. Vicat. Colon. Allobr. 1761. fol. Tom. i. p. 343, ss.) Chr, G. F. 
Walch de Romanorum in tolerandis diversis religionibus disciplina publica (in novis com- 
mentariis Soc. Reg. Scient. Goettingensis. Tom. iii. 1773). De Burigny mémoire sur le © 
respect, que les Romains avoient pour la religion, dans lequel on examine, jusqu’d quel 
degré de licence la tolérance étoit portée d Rome. (Mémoires de l’Acad. des Inscript. T. 
34, hist. p. 48, ss.). Hartung, i. 232. 


86 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I1—A.D. 1-117. 


origin could not easily hold out against such prohibitions, since, 
coming under the Roman idea of collegza,* they were also op- 
posed by the laws against collegia ilicita,° and since all noctur- 
nal associations were forbidden under pain of death.¢ On the 
other hand, the private worship of strange gods was not so easily 
eradicated, 


§ 13. 


RELATION OF PHILOSOPHY TO THE POPULAR RELIGIONS. 


As soon as philosophy was cultivated in Greece, the unity of 


+ Collegia, sodalitia, sodalitates, éra:pefaz. The Greeks and Romans were fond of suck 
connections, which had their basis partly in relationship (comp. the Roman gentes and 
curiae, the Athenian ¢parpiaz), partly in similarity of profession (so the collegia tibicinum, 
. aurificum, architectoruam, &c., at Rome). They had both their own sacred rites, a common 
fund, and seeret meetings and feasts (%pavor). Thus the priests of the same deities not 
only formed collegia of this nature (comp. sodales Augustales, Aureliani, &c.), but unions 
for the worship of certain deities were also reckoned collegia (for example, for the solem- 
nization of the rites of Bacchus, see note 3). So Cato says, in Cicero de senectut., c. 13: 
Sodalitates me quaestore constitutae sunt sacris Idacis Magnae Matris acceptis. So speaks 
Philo, in Flaccum, of the éraipeiatg Kai ovvddoie in Alexandria, at dei mpoddce: Ovarov 
elotiOvto Toic mpdyuaciv éurapotvoicoa. Cf. Salmassii observatt. ad jus Rom. et Atti- 
cum, c.3u, 4. J. G. Stuckii antiquitatum convivialium, lib.i.c. 31. (Opp. tom. i. Lugd. 
Bat. et Amstel. 1695. fol. p. 173, ss.) H. E. Dirksen, histor. Bemerkungen tiber den Zu- 
stand der juristischen Personen nach rém. Recht, in his civilist. Abhandlungen (Berlin. 
1820). Bd. 1. 8.1, ff. 

5 Besides the prohibitions in the time of the Republic, compare that of Julius Caesar 
(Sueton. Caesar, c. 42), Augustus (Sueton. Octavian. c. 32), &c. Compare the later jurists 
in the Pandects: Gajus (about 160), lib. ili. (Digest. lib. iii. tit. 4. 1.1): Neque sodietas, 
neque collegium, neque hujusmodi corpus passim omnibus habere conceditur: nam et leg- 
ibus et Senatusconsultis, et Principalibus constitutionibus ea res coércetur, &c. Particular- 
ly Dig. lib. xlvii. tit. 22, de collegiis et corporibus illicitis, Lex 1 (Marcianus, about 222) : 
Mandatis Principalibus praecipitur Praesidibus Provinciarym, ne patiantur esse collegia 
sodalitia. § 1. Sed religionis causa coire non prohibentur: dam tamen per hoc non fiat 
contra Senatusconsultum, quo illicita collegia arcentur. Lex 2 (Ulpianus t 228): Quisquis 
illicitum collegium usurpaverit, ea poena tenetur, qua tenentur, qui hominibus armatis loca 
publica vel templa occupasse judicati sunt (consequently according to Dig. xlviii. tit. 4, 1. 
1, like those convicted of high treason). Lex 3 (Marcianus), § 1: In summa autem, nisi ex 
Senatusconsulti auctoritate, vel Caesaris, collegium, vel quodcunque tale corpus coierit, 
contra Senatusconsultum, et Mandata, et Constitutiones collegium celebratur. Cf. Jac. 
Cujacii Observationum, lib. vii. Observ. 30. Barn. Brissonii antiquitatum ex jure civili 
selectarum, lib. i. c. 14. 

° Tab. ix. Lex 6: Sei quei endo urbe coitus nocturnos agitasit, capital estod. This de- 
termination was renewed by the lex Gabinia (Leges xii. Tabularum restitutae et illus. ° 
tratae a J. N. Funccio. Rintelii. 1744. 4 p. 400)." 


INTRODUCTION I—HEATHEN NATIONS. § 13. PHILOSOPHY. 37 


God was expressed in most of the schools,’ and morality was 
placed on a more becoming and a religious foundation.? But 
while philosophy could not fail of producing a high religious 
feeling in the narrow circle of the initiated, it occasioned a crude 
skepticism among the more numerous class of the half instructed. 
Although Plato and Aristotle directly expressed their sentiments 
regarding the popular religion in a reserved and cautious man- 
ner, and even conformed externally to its requirements,’ yet 
their theology afforded a standard by which, when many parts 
of the popular faith were judged, they must necessarily vanish 
into nothing. The Stoic pantheism endeavored to preserve the 
current mythology by considering the deities as the fundamental 
powers of the universe, and explaining the myths allegorically ; 
but it destroyed; at the same time, all religious feeling by its 
spirit of pride.‘ The Epicurean philosophy, as fat as it removed 
all connection between the gods and the world, making the lat- 
ter originate in chance, destroyed all religion and morality ; and 
though this was not its tendency in the eyes of the founder, it 
was certainly the aim of his later disciples. The skepticism of 
the middle and new academy exerted no better influence, at least 
in the larger circles. 

Soon after Greek literature had been introduced at Rome af- 
ter the time of Liviuws Andronicus (about 240 s.c.), skeptical 
doubts manifested themselves thére also.* Subsequently, the 


1-Cf£ Cicero de Nat. Deorum, i. c. 10, ss. Rad. Cudworthi systema intellectuale, vertit 
et illustr. J. L. Moshemius. (Jenae. 1733. fol.) p. 730, ss. [Ralph Cudworth’s Intellectual 
System of the Universe. London, folio, 1678.] Chr. Meiner’s hist. doctrinae de vero Deo. 
Lemgov. 1780. p. ii. 

2 Staudlin’s Gesch. der Moralphilosophie, Hannover, 1822, i in many passages. Limburg 
Brower’s work already quoted in § 10. 

3 F. A. Carus hist. antiquior sententiarum Ecclesiae graecae de accommodatione 
Christo imprimis et Apostolis tributa, diss. Lips. 1793. 4. p. 13, ss. For the manner 
in which the Grecian states judged respecting every departure from the public religion, 
see F. W. Tittmann’s Darstellung der griechisch. Staatsverfassungen. Leipzig. 1822. 
§..27, ff. 4 

4 For example, Seneca, epist. 73: Jupiter quo antecedit viram bonum? diutius bonus 
est. Sapiens nihilo se minoris aestimat, quod virtutes ejus spatio breviori clauduntur. 
Sapiens tam aequo animo omnia apud alios videt, contemnitque quam Jupiter: et héc se 
magis suspicit, quod Jupiter: uti illis non potest, sapiens non yult. Schwabe tiber das 
Verhaltniss der stoischen Moral zum Christenthum, in the Zeitschrift fir Moral, by ©. F. 
Bohme and G. Ch. Miller, Bd. 1. St. 3. S. 38, ff G. H. Klippel comm. exhibens doe- 
trinae Stoicorum ethicae atque christianae expositionem et comparationem. Goetting. 
1823. 8. i 

5 They appeared first of all in Ennius (239-168 3.c.) C£ Cicero de Nat. Deor. i. 42: 


38: FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D: 1-117. 


academy, the porch, and epicureanism, finding a more general 
reception, from the time of the famous Athenian embassy, 
(Carneades, Diogenes, Critolaus, 155 3.c.), the flourishing phi- 
losophy tended not only to weaken the popular religion,’ but to 
destroy the religious faith of many.’ But although skepticism 
spread more and more, yet the unbelieving politicians and phi- 
losophers themselves agreed, that the native religion must be 
upheld with all their powers, as the support of the state, and of 
all the-relations of life.* With the multitude, no philosophy could 
take the place of the religious motives whieh lay in the popular 
religion ;* and of foreign religious rites the opinion was, that they 
destroyed national feeling, and produced an inclination to for- 
eign customs and laws.'° Hence, even Scaevola (about 100 
B.C.) wished to confirm anew the religion of the state by sepa- 
rating it from philosophy and mythology, whence proceeded its 


Euhemerum.noster et interpretatus et secutus est praeter caeteros Ennius.. Ab-Eubemero. 
autem mortes et sepulturae demonstrantur deorum. Besides Ennius translated Epichar- 
mus’s representation of the Pythagorean doctrine respecting God, nature; and the soul; 
comp. Dr. L. Krahner’s Grundlinien zur Gesch. des. Verfalls d. rom. Staatsreligion bis auf 
die Zeit des August (a school-programme). Halle. 1837. 4. 8. 20, ff. Ennius’s own relig- 
ious views are given in Cie: de Divin. il. c. 50 : 


Ego Deum genus esse semper dixi, et dicam caelitum : 
Sed eos non curare opinor, quid agat humanum genus, 


& Gic. de invent. i 29: In eo autem, quod in opinione positum- est, hujusmodi sunt pro 
babilia :—eos, qui philosophiae dent operam; non arbitrari Deos esse. Idem. pro Cluentio, 
c. 61. De Nat. Deor. ii. c.2. Tuscul. Quaest. i. c. 5, 6. 

7 In Sallustius in Catilina, c. 51, Caesar says: In luctu atque miseriis mortem aerumna- 
rum requiem, non cruciatum esse: eam cuncta mortalium mala dissolvere: ultra neque 
eurae neque gaudio locum esse. And Catosays; in reference to-Caesar’s speech, c: 52: 
Bene et composite C. Caesar paulo ante in hoc ordine de vita et morte disseruit; falsa, 
credo, existimans, quae de inferis memorantur: diverso itinere malos a bonis loca tetra, 
inculta, foeda atque formidolosa habere. 

8 @icero de leg. i. 7%. See above § 9, note 4, de Divin. ii. 33: Non sumus ii nos 
augures, qui avium reliquorumve signorum observatione fatura dicamus. Erravit enim 
multis in rebus antiquitas, quas vel usu jam, vel doetrina, vel vetustate immutatas 
videmus. Retinetur autem et ad opinionem: vulgi, et ad magnas utilitates reipublicae 
mos, religio, disciplina, jus augurum, collegii auctoritas. 

2 Strabo, in-geograph. i. c: 2, pag. 19: Ob yap éyAov Te yuvatkGy, Kat TavTo¢ yvdaiov 
wAnQove éxayaysiv Adyw dvvarov $120060W, Kai mpockarécacbat mpd¢ evoéGBerar, Kai 
éc.6TnTa Kal mioTiv; GAXG dei Kai Ord Setordaipoviac’ ToiTto 0 obK dvew pvOorotiac, 
Kat Tepareiac. 

10 Comp. the advice of Maecenas to Augustus, according to Dio Cassius, lib. lii. = 
TO pev Ociov mavtn TévTwc abtécg Te céBov KaTad Ta TatpLa, Kai TOdE GAAOVE TiMar- 
avaykale- rove 62 On Eevilovtde te mepi abrd Kal picet Kai KéAale, uy povwv Tov Bear 
évexa, Ov Katagpovioac ob0' GAAov dv Twoe TpoTipioeter, GAN Ste Katvd Tiva damévie 
of towwdro. dvreiodépovTec, TOARODE avareiBovoty GAOoTpLOvomety’ KaK TovTOV Kai 
ovvwpociat Kai ovotaoerc étatpeiat Te yiyvovtat, dxep ixiora povapyia cvudégen~ 
uBr ovv dbée tii, pare yonTe ovyxwphoge elvais. 


INTRODUCTION I—HEATHEN NATIONS. § 13. PHILOSOPHY. 39 


corruption ;‘' and M. Terentius Varro, abiding by that separa- 
tion (about 50 B.c.), endeavored to prepare for it a new basis. 
out of the doctrine of the Stoics.’? . 


u Augustin. de civit. Dei, iv. 27: Relatum est in literis, doctissimum pontificem Scae- 
volam disputasse tria genera tradita deorum; unum a poétis, alterum a philosophis, 
tertium a principibus civitatis. Primum genus nugatorium dicit esse, quod multa de diis 
fingantur indigna: secundum non congruere civitatibus, quod habeat aliqua supervacua, 
aliqua etiam quae obsit populis nosse (pamely, non esse deos Herculem, Aesculapium, 
&c.—eorum, qui sint dii, non habere civitates vera simulacrg—verum Deum nec sexum 
habere, nee aetatem, nec definita corporis membra). Haec pontifex nosse populos non 
vult, nam falsa esse non putat.’ Comp. Krahner, 8. 45. 

12 According to Augustinus de civ. Dei vi. 2, Varro said in his Rerum Divinarum, lib. 
Xvi., the second part of his Antiquitates: se timere, ne (dii) pereant, non incursu hostili, 
sed civium negligentia: de qua illos velut ruina liberari a se dicit, et in memoria bonoram 
per hujusmodi libros recondi atque servari. He also distinguishes (I. c. vi. 5) tria genera 
theologiae, namely, mythicon, quo maxime utuntur poétae, physicon, quo philosophi, civile, 
quo populi. Primum, quod dixi, in eo sunt multa contra dignitatem et naturam immor- . 
talium ficta. Secundum genus est, quod demonstravi, de quo multos libros philosophi 
reliquerunt. In quibus est: dii qui gint, ubi, quod genus caet. (Augustine adds: Nihilin 
hoe genere culpavit. Removit tamen hoe genus a foroi. e. a populis: scholis vero et 
parietibus clausit. Illud autem primum mendacissimum atque turpissimum a civitatibus 
non removit). Tertiam genus est, quod in urbibus cives, maxime sacerdotes, nosse atque 
administrare debent. In quo est, quos deos publice colere, quae sacra et sacrificia facere 
quemquam par sit. Prima theologia maxime accommodata est ad theatrum, secunda ad 
mundum, tertia ad urbem. (Plutarch also, Amator, c. 18, and de placitis philosoph. i. 6, 
distinguishes this threefold theology, 76 uvOix6v, To dvotkév and TO woAcTLKéy). Respect- 
ing the religion of the Roman state, Varro, as reported by Augustine, 1. c. iv. 31, said: 
non se illa judicio suo sequi, quae civitatem Romanum institnisse commemorat ; ut, si eam 
civitatem noyam constitueret, ex naturae potius formula deos nominaque deorum se fuisse 
dedicaturum non dubitet confiteri. Sed jam quoniam in vetere populo essent accepta, ab 
antiquis nominum et cognominum historiam tenere ut tradita est debere se dicit, et ad 
eum finem illam scribere ac perscrutari, ut potius eos magis colere, quam despicere vulgus 
velit. L.c. vii: 6: Dicit ergo idem Varro adhuc de naturali theologia praeloquens, Deum 
se arbitrari esse animam mundi, quem Graeci vocant xécuoy, et hunc ipsum mundum 
esse Deum. Hic videtur quoquo modo confiteri unum Deum, sed ut plures etiam intro- 
ducat, adjungit, mundum dividi in duas partes, caelam et terram; et caelum bifariam in 
aethera et aéra, terram vero in aquam et humum. Quas omnes quatuor partes animarum 
esse plenas, in aethere et aGre immortalium, in aqua et terra mortalium : a summo autem 
circuitu caeli usque ad circulum lunae aethereas animas esse astra ac stellas, eosque 
caelestes deos non modo intelligi esse, sed etiam videri. Inter lunae vero gyrum et 
nimborum ac ventorum cacumina aéreas esse animas, sed eas animo, non oculis videri, et 
vocari heroas, et lares, et genios. Haec est videlicet breviter in ista praelocutione pro- 
posita theologia naturalis, quae non huic tantum, sed et multis philosophis placuit. Tertul- 
lian’s second book, ad Nationes, is directed against this theology of Varro. ec 
Hartung, i. 274. Krahner, 8. 49. 


40 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 1-117. 


§ 14. 


REVOLUTION OF RELIGIOUS MODES OF THINKING UNDER THE 
EMPERORS, 


C. Meiners Gesch. des Verfalls der Sitten, der Wissenchaften und Sprache der Romer in 
den ersten Jahrhunderten nach Christi Geburt. Wien u. Leipzig 1791. 8. 5. 268, ff P. 
E. Miller de hierarchia et studio vitae asceticae in sacris et mysteriis Graecorum 
Romanorumque latentibus. Hafn. 1803. 8, (translated in the Neuen Biblioth. der 
schénen Wissench. Bd. 68 u. 70). To this topic belongs the first section, viz., Origin 
of the—superstition—till the time of Domitian. 


In the reign of the emperors the national deities, who were 
obliged to divide their honors with the most miserable of men,’ 
sank by degrees still lower in the faith of the people.? The at- 
tachment to traditional customs and institutions, decaying along 
with liberty, could no longer afford these gods a protection. 
Politics and habit secured them nothing more than a lukewarm, 
external worship.* The relations of the times did not lead men 
away from the error that had been abandoned, toward a some- 
what purer religion, but to a still grosser superstition. The cow- 
ardly weaklings,* who were the offspring of a luxury surpass- 


1 According to Polybius, 5, the custom of honoring benefactors with sacrifices and altars 
appeared first among the Asiatics, the Greeks, and Syrians. Similar honors were fre- 
quently paid to proconsuls in their provinces. (Cicero ad Atticum y. 21. Sueton. Oct. c. 
52: Mongault, in the Mémoires de I’ Acad. des Inscr. t. i. p. 353, ss.) Caesar caused these 
honors to be decreed to him by the senate in Rome also. (Suet. Caes. 76). Augustus 
accepted in the provinces temples and colleges of priests (Tacit. Annal. i. 10, Suet. Oct. 
c. 52); and so did all his sucvessors, with the single exception of Vespasian. Domitian 
even began his letters with: Dominns et Deus noster hoc fieri juabet (Suet. Domit. 13). 
J. D. Schoepflini comm. de apotheosi s. consecratione Impp. Romanorum (in ejusd. com- 
mentt. hist. et. crit. Basil. 1741. 4. p. 1, ss.). 

2 Senecae Ep. 24. Juvenal. Satyr. ii. v. 149: 

Esse aliquos manes, et subterranea regna 

Et contum, et stygio ranas in gurgite nigras, 
Atque una transire vadum tot millia cymba, 

Nec pueri credunt, nisi qui nondum aere lavantur. 

3 Seneca de superstitionibus, apud Augustin. de civit. Dei, v1. c. 10: Quae omnia 
sapiens servabit tanquam legibus jussa, non tanquam Diis grata. Omnem istam igno- 
bilem Deoram turbam, quam longo aevo longa superstitio congessit, sic adorabimus, ut 
meminerimus, cultum ejus magis ad morem quam ad rem pertinere. 

4 sie Sat. vi. 292-300 (comp. Meiners, 1. c. 8. 85) : 

Nunc patimur longae pacis mala. Saevior armis 
Luxuria incubuit, victumque ulciscitur orbem. 
Nullum crimen abest, facinusque libidinis, ex quo 
Paupertas Romana perit: hinc fluxit ad istos 

Et Sybaris colles, hinc et Rhodos et Miletos, 

Atque coronatum et petulans madidumque Tarentum, 
Prima peregrinos obscoena pecunia mores 

Intulit, et turpi fregerunt secula luxu 

Divitiae molles. 


INTROD. 1—HEATHEN NATIONS. §14. UNDER THE EMPERORS. 41 


ing all bounds, must have stood open to every superstition, 
especially as dangers daily threatened them from those in power. 
Curiosity, and an inordinate longing for the secret and the aw- 
ful, contributed to increase the superstition. ‘Tio this must be 
added the decline of the earnest study of the sciences (law and 
juridical eloquence being almost the only studies of the time); 
but, above all, the excessive corruption of the age.®° Cowardly 
vice sought partly to make magical rites subservient to its will,° 
while it was, in part, driven to more powerful purifications by 
the stings of conscience. Already had the religions of the east, 
by their mysterious, fantastic worship, and the asceticism of 
their priests, made an impression on the superstitious disposition 
of the Romans; so that they had been restricted and opposed tby 
the laws. But the current of the time that set in now broke 
through all laws. Foreign modes of worship and priests found 
their way into the state with a power that could not be re- 
pressed. In addition to them, a great number of astrologers 
(mathematici), who pretended to be initiated into the secret 
sciences of the east, interpreters of dreams, and magicians, 
spread themselves through the empire.’ The object of such per- 


5 Compare especially the satires of Persius and Juvenal. Seneca de Ira, ii. 8: Omnia 
sceleribus ac vitiis plena sunt: plus committitur, quam quod possit coércitione sanari. 
Certatur ingenti quodam nequitiae certamine: major quotidie peccandi cupiditas, minor 
verecundia est. Expulso melioris aequiorisque respectu, quocunque visum est, libido se 
impingit. Nec furtiva jam scelera sunt: praeter oculos eunt: adeoque in publicum missa 
nequitia est, et in omnium pectoribus evaluit, ut innocentia non rara, sed nulla sit. Num- 
quid enim singuli aut pauci rupere legem? undique, velut signo dato, ad fas nefasque 
miscendum coorti sunt. 


— Non hospes ab hospite tutus, 
Non socer a genero. Fratrum quoque gratia rara est. 
Imminet exitio vir conjugis, illa mariti. 
Lurida terribiles miscent aconita novercae. 
Filius ante diem patrios inquirit in annos, 
{from Ovid. Metam. i. v. 144, ss.) Et quota pars ista scelerum est! &c. Comp. ejusd. 
Epist. 95. Pauli Epist. ad Rom. i. 21, ss. Comp. Corn. Adami de malis Romanorum 
ante praedicationem Evangelii moribus (in his Exercitationes exegeticae. Groening. 
1712. 4, the fifth exercit.). Meiners ubi supra. Schlosser’s Universalhist. Uebersicht der 
Gesch. der alten Welt. iii. i. 122, ff. 326, ff Hoeck’s rom. Gesch. vom Verfall der Re- 
' publik bis zur Vollendung der Monarchie unter Constantin. i. ii. 301, ff 

6 Diodorus Sic. bibl. hist. xx. c. 43, p. 755: Aevowdaivoves yap ol wéArovtec éyxetpetv 
Taig mapavipuorg xai weyddate mpdseot. - 

1 Of foreign deities Serapis and Isis (43 B.c.) were the first who had a temple in the 
city. The fruits of superstition were shared with the priests of Isis, who was patticu- 
larly revered by the Galli, the priests of Dea Syra, the Magi, Chaldaei (s.Genethliaci, qui 
de motu deque positu stellaram dicere posse, quae futura sunt, profitentur, Gellius, Noct. 
Att. xiv. 1, where a copious refutation of these arts may be found), Mathematici (genus 
hominam potentibus’ infidum, sperantibus fallax, quod in civitate nostra et vetabitur 


42 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 1-117. 


sons was to turn the prevailing superstition, as much as possi- 
ble, to their own advantage, and at the same time to strengthen 
it.» The laws of the first emperors against foreign customs were 
of less avail, because they themselves believed in their efficacy, 
followed them in private, and were only afraid that they should 
be abused to the prejudice of their own persens.* 

This superstition was promoted in no slight degree by philos- 
ophy making it subservient to its purpose.’ The more boldly 
philosophical skepticism had attacked not only the popular re- 
ligions, but also the general truths of religion, so much the more 
zealously did the later dogmatism endeavor to put together sys- 
tems framed in part from earlier ones, and in part from the 
materials themselves of the popular religion. In these newly- 
invented systems every superstition found shelter. Under Au- 
gustus, the long-forgotten doctrines of Pythagoras were suddenly 
revived in the most wonderful form by Anazilaus, who was soon 
followed by the still more adventurous Apollonius of Tyana.*® 


semper, et retinebitur. Tacit. Hist. i. 22), and even the vagrant Jews. Comp. Diet. 
Tiedemann disputat. de quaestione, quae fuerit artium magicarum origo. &c. Marburg. 
1787. 4. p. 56, ss. Hoeck i. ii. 378. How much the female sex, in particular, was given 
to this superstition is strikingly described by Juvenal Sat. vi. 510-555. Cf. Strabo vii. 
ce. 3,§ 4: “Anavrec tHe detoiWamoviac dpynyov¢ olovtat tTa¢ yvvaixac. avtar d2 Kai 
Tove dvdpac TapakadovyTat mpd¢ tac éxixAeov Oeparciac TOv Gedy, Kai éopra¢ Kai 
moTviacuotc’ ondviov de et tic avip Kal’ abrov GGv ebpioxerat totobtoc. On the 
superstition of this period generally, see Plinii Nat. Hist. ii. c. 5: Vix prope est judicare, 
utrum magis conducat generi humano, quando aliis nullus est Deorum respectus, aliis 
pudendus. Externis famulantur sacris, ac digitis Deos gestant: monstra quoque, quae 
eolunt, damnant et excogitant cibos, imperia dira in ipsos, ne somno quidem quieto, 
irrogant. Non matrimonia, non liberos, nom denique quidquam aliud nisi juvantibus sacris 
deligunt. Alii in Capitolio fallunt, ac fulminantem pejerant Jovem: et hos juvant scelera, 
illos sacra sua poenis agunt. 

8 Meiners, 1. c. S. 276, ff. The example of the elder Pliny shows how unbelief and super- 
stition united in the educated class. He says, Nat. Hist. ii. c.5: Irridendum vero, agere 
curam reram humanarum illud quicquid est summum. Anne tam tristi atque multiplici 
ministerio non pollui credamus dabitemusve? vii. c. 56: Omnibus a suprema die eadem, 
quae ante primum : nec magis a morte sensus ullus aut corpori aut animae, quam ante 
natalem. He speaks, however, in his Second Book in a very believing tone respecting 
portenta, ex. gr., cap. 86: Nunquam urbs Roma tremuit, ut non futuri eventus alicujus id 
praenuntium esset. Comp. Tacit. Ann. vi. c. 22. 

’ Tzschirner, Fall des Heidenthums. Bd.1. S. 127, ff. 

10 Apollonius lived from 3 B.c. till 96 a.p. Celsus does not name him among the 
wonder-workers (Aristeas, Abaris, &c.), whom he compares with Christ (Origen against 
Celsus, iii.). In the second century Lucian (in Alexander) and Apuleius (Apologia, Opp. 
ed. Elmenhorst, :p. 331) describe him as a famous magician. In the same light did he 
also appear to his oldest biographer, Méragenes, who speaks besides of his influence with 
the philosophers (Origenes c. Cels. vi. ed. Spencer, p. 302), so that he appears to have 
given a philosophical basis to magi¢. From the beginning of the third century, when a 
religious ¢clecticism gained ground,» the memory of Apollonius became prominent. 


INTROD. lL—HEATHEN NATIONS. § 14. UNDER THE EMPERORS. 43 


While these men endeavored to restore, out of its own sources, 
the Pythagorean philosophy, as if it had proceeded from the 
mysteries of Egyptian priests, and looked upon Platonism ‘as 
an efilux of the doctrine of Pythagoras, a singular, heteroge- 
neous philosophy of religion grew up under their hands, in which 
all popular religions, no less than all magic arts, found their 
justification. From this time onward even the Platonic school 
forsook the skepticism of the new academy, attaching itself to 
those modern Pythagoreans, though it sought to assimilate its 
dogmatism to other systems also, particularly the Aristoteliam. 
The mode of life among the Pythagoreans was not attractive to 
many, and consequently this xew Platonism formed the prevail- 
ing philosophy. With it, as the philosophy of superstition,** 
_ Epicureanism almost alone, as the philosophy of unbelief,’? di- 
vided the dominion over the minds of men generally. Of the 
pure Peripatetics there was always but a small number; and 
though the Stotes could boast of so distinguished men at this 
time (Seneca, Dio of Prusa, Epictetus), yet their system of 
morality excited admiration, instead of exerting an influence on 
the life.* The Cynics had lowered themselves so much by 


Caracalla dedicated a sanctuary to him (Dio Cassius, Ixxvii. 18); Severus Alexander set 
him up in his collection of household gods (Aelius Lamprid. in vita Sev. Al. c. 29). Julia 
Mammaea, in particular, was a great admirer of him. Into her hands came the memo- 
rabilia of Damis, a companion of Apollonius, which Philostratus the elder, in his life 
of Apollonius (Philostratorum opera gr. et lat. ed. G. Olearius. Lips. 1709. fol.), wished 
to bring into a more acceptable form (vita Ap. i. 3) by using a work of Maximus of Aege. 
Here Apollonius appears as a wise man and a favorite of the gods. furnished with won- 
derful powers in working miracles, and commissioned by the gods themselves to reform 
the popular religions. On the other hand, the older representation of Méragenes is 
designated as almost useless. Dio Cassius, however, continually enumerates Apollonius 
among the magicians and impostors. That the work of Damis is spurious, and originated 
probably in the third century, may be proved not-only from the absurdity of the contents. 
but also from anachronisms (Prideaux’s Connection, Hug’s Introduction to the N. T.) Cf. 
Mosheim de existimatione Apollonii Tyanaei (in his Commentationes et Orationes varii 
argumenti, ed. J. P. Miller. Hamburgi. 1751. 8. p. 347), de scriptis A. T. (I. c. p. 453), de 
imaginibus telesticis A. T. (1. c. p. 465). Apollonius v. Tyana u. Christus, od. d. Verhaltniss 
d. Pythagoreismus zum Christenthum von Dr. Baur (in the Tibingen Zeitschr. f. Theol. 
1832. Heft. 4, also printed separately). 
11 These Platonists also exercised the profession of astrology. So Thrasybulus,. the 
soothsayer of Tiberius (Sueton. in Tib. c. 14. 62. Tac. Ann. vi. 20). r 
12 See above note 8. Juvenal. Satyr. xiii. 86, ss. 
Sunt, in fortunae qui casibus omnia ponant, 
Et ullocredant mundum rectore moveri, 
Natura volvente vices et lucis et anni ; 
Atque ideo intrepidi quaecunque altaria tangunt. 


13 Cicero, Orat. pro Murena, c. 30: arripuit—disputandi causa—magna pars. Respect- 
ing the customs: of the philosophers of this time generally compare in Seneca, epist. 29, 


44 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 1-117. 


their shamelessness that their influence on the age was of little 
consequence. 


Il. 


\ 


CONDITION OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE. 


Sources—Writings of the New Testament. Flavii Josephi (born 37 n. Chr. t ahout 93) 
Opera (Antiquitatum Judaicarum libb. xx.—de Bello Judaico libb. vii—de Vita sua— 
contra Apionem libb. ii.) ed. Sigeb. Havercamp. Amstel. 1726: 2 Bde. fol. Smaller 
editions by Franc, Oberthir. Wirceburgi. 1782-85. 3 Thle. 8, and C. E. Richter. 
Lips. 1826, s. 6 voll. 8. 


J. M. Jost Geschichte der Israeliten seit der Zeit der Maccabiaer bis auf unsere Tage. 
Berlin. 1820-28. 9 Thle. 8. 


§ 15. 
IN PALESTINE. 


After the Babylonish captivity the Jews were successively 
subject to the Persians, Egyptians, and Syrians, and then 
formed (from 167-63 8.c.) an independent state under the Mac- 
cabees, till the last of that race, Hyrcanus, was obliged to ac- 
knowledge the Roman sovereignty. After his death Herod, the 
Idumean (from 40—4 s.c.), ruled over the land in dependence 
on the Romans, and afterward divided it among his three sons, 
so that Archelaus was ethnarch of Judea, Idumea, and Sama- 
ria, while Philip, and Herod Antipas, as tetrarchs, received 
possession—the former, of Batanea, Ituraea, and Trachonitis— 
the latter of Galilaea and Peraea. After the banishment of Ar- 
chelaus (6 a.v.), his territories became a Roman province, and 
were governed under the proconsul of Syria, by a procurator, 
(the fifth, Pontius Pilate from 28-37 a.n.) The tetrachy of 
Philip did not continue long after his death in the hands of the 
Romans, but was consigned to Herod Agrippa (37), who 


the reason why he doubts of gaining over a wit, Marcellinus, to philosophy : Scrutabitur 
scholas nostras, et objiciet philosophis congiaria, amicas, gulam: ostendet mihi aliam in 
adulterio, alium in popina, alium in aula. Hos mihi circulatores, qui philosophiam honest- 
ius neglexissent, quam vendunt, in faciem ingeret. - Juvenal. Sat. ii. init. 


INTRODUCTION Ii—JEWS. §15. IN PALESTINE. 45 


united it to the tetrarchy (39) of the banished Herod Antipas, 
and was finally elevated by Claudius even to be king of all 
Palestine (41). After his death, his entire kingdom again be- 
eame a Roman province, managed by procurators, (Cuspius Fa- 
dus, Tiberius, Alexander, Ventidius Cumanus, Claudius. Feliz, 
Porcius Festus, Albinus, Gesstus Florus). Wis son, Agrippa IL., 
afterward obtained the kingdom of Chalcis (47), which he was 
soon obliged to change for the tetrarchy of Philip (52); while, 
at the same time, the superintendence of the temple at Jerusalem 
was intrusted to him as a Jew. With him the race of Herod 
became extinct (¢ 100 at Rome).’ 

Oppression under a foreign yoke, and especially the persecu- 
tion of religion by Antiochus Epiphanes, had produced among 
the Jews a strict separation from all that was unjewish, inflam- 
ing their contempt and hatred for all foreign eustoms, and, at 
the same time, raising to a high degree their national feelings 
and attachment to the religion of their fathers. But, alas! a 
spiritual feeling for religion had expired with the spirit of proph- 
ecy. ‘The priesthood, finding no longer any opposing obstacle, 
connected, with one-sided aim, the renovated zeal of the people 
with the external law, and, in particular, with the Levitical 
worship which was always enlarging itself, in which alone the 
priests, as such, had an interest. Even the synagogues that 
arese after the Babylonish captivity,? adapted as they were to 
promote a more spiritual religion, served still more to advance 
the legal spirit of the Levitical code. Hence, there arose at 
this time the most obstinate attachment—yea, a fanatical zeal 
for the Mosaic ceremonial, apart from any real religious feeling 
and moral improvement, and accompanied rather by a more 
general and deeper corruption of the people.’ With tis dispo- 
sition, which was directed only to the external, their pride in 


1 Christ. Noldii hist. Idamea, s. de vita et gestis Herodum. Franeq. 1660. 12, also in 
Havercamp’s edition of Josephus, t. ii. Appendix, p. 331, ff. E. Bertheau's zur Gesch. 
der Israeliten zwei Abhandlungen. Gottingen. 1842. §. 437. 2 

2 Cf. Camp. Vitringa de Synagoga worere, libb. iii. Franeker. 1696. ed. 2, Leucopetr- 
1726. 4. 

3 Comp. Josephus in several passages ; for example, de B. J. v. 10, 5,-he declares: pare 
- mddtwy GAAnv Toradra weTovbévat, uATE yevedv é& alavog yeyovévat kakiag yovimwtépav. 
Ibid. v. 13, 6. Ibid. vii. 8, 1: éyévero ydp moc 6 apovos éxeivoc mavtodange év Toi¢ 
"Tovdaiore xovnpiag moAvddpoc, Ge undév Kakiac Epyov dmpaxtov Katadireiv, und’ et Teg 
éxwoia diaxAdrrew eerqoeev Exyetv dv te nawdtepov éfevpeiv. obrw¢ idia te Kat 
Kowy mavrec évooncar, kal mpdc brepBareiv dAAgAove ev Te Taig Mog TOV Gedy doeBeiacc, 
kai Taic ele Tove wAnciov ddixiate Epidoveixyoay. 


46 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D. 1-117. 


transmitted privileges, and in the peculiar favor of Jehovah, 
increased equally with the hope that God would soon free his 
favorite people from the yoke of the heathen, and under the do- 
minion of Messiah elevate them to be the rulers of the earth. 
These earthly expectations and views, which the people painted 
to themselves in a highly sensuous degree, must have been very 
prejudicial to the inward religious feelings.* At the same time, 
the opinion was not rare, that it was unworthy of the people of 
God to obey a foreign power.’ On the other hand, the preju- 
dices and national pride of a people despised by the Romans, 
infused hatred into the minds of the procurators and other Ro- 
man officials, which was often exhibited in provocations and 
oppressions. Hence arose frequent rebellions against the Ro- 
man power, till at last the general insurrection under Gesstus 
Florus (65) led to the devastation of the whole land, and the 
destruction of Jerusalem, (70). By this means the strength 
of the people was broken for a time, but their disposition and 
aims were not changed. 

It remains for us to notice three sects of the Jews:® the 
Pharisees,’ in whom the Judaism of that time, with the new 
doctrinal sentiments acquired in exile, and its own continued 
culture of the Levitical law, presented itself in a completed 
form. All the traits of the national character were presented 
by this sect in a still more cultivated degree, and hence it was 
the greatest favorite among the people. The Sadducees® en- 


* Respecting the Judaism of this time, see De Wette’s biblische Dogmatik (2te Aufl. 
Berlin. 1818), § 76, ff. Baumgarten-Crusius, Grundzige der bibl. Theologie. Jena. 1828, 
$.117, ff C.H.L. Poelitz dissert. de gravissimis theologiae serioram Judaeorum decretis. 
Lips. 1794. 4, The same author’s pragmatische Uebersicht der Theologie der spatern 
Juden. Leipz. 1795. Th. 1. 8 A. F. Gfrorer’s das Jahrhundert des Heils. 2 Abth. 
Stuttgart. 1838. On the ideas entertained of the Messiah: Bertholdt christologia Judae- 
orum Jesu Apostolorumque aetate. Erlang. 1811. 8. C. A. Th. Keil historia dogmatis 
de regno Messiae Christi et Apostoloram aetate. Lips. 1781 (in Keilii opusculis, ed. J. 
D. Goldhorn. Lips. 1821. Sect. i. p. 22, ss.) Bertholdt and Gfrérer have ventured to 
throw too much of the later Rabbinism backward into this period. 

5 Jadas Galilaeus and his adherents, wovov jyeu6va Kai deorébtyy Tov Oedv bretAnddrer 
(Jos. Ant. xvili. 1,6). "Iotdac ete dxéctacw tvijyé Tobe éxtywpiove, kaxlGav, ei ddpov Te 
‘Pauaiore TeAeiv bropévovet, Kai weTa Tov Bedv oicovet Bvytove deonérag (de B. J. ii. 
8, 1) cf. Deut. xviz. 15. 

6 Trium scriptorum illustrium (Drusii, Jos. Scaligeri, et Serarii) de tribus Judaeoram 
sectis syntagma, ed Jac. Triglandius. Delphis. 1703. 2 voll. 4. De Wette’s hebraisch- 
jiidische Archaologie, § 274, 275. Peter Beer’s Geschichte, Lehren und Meinungen aller 
bestandenen und noch bestehenden religidsen Secten der Juden, und der Geheimlehre 
oder Cabbalah. Brinn. 1822, 23. 2. Bde. 8. 7 Winer’s bibl. Realw6rterbuch, ii. 289. 

§ Chr. G. L. Grossmann, de philosophia Sadducaeorum, Part iv. Lips. 1836-38. 4, is ef 


INTROD. IL—JEWS. § 16. HEATHEN’S SENTIMENTS TOWARD. 47 


deavored to give prominence to the old Hebraism, as it appears 
in the written law of Moses. The Essenes led an ascetic life 
in retirement,’ and exerted but little influence over the people. 


§ 16. 
SENTIMENTS OF THE HEATHEN NATIONS TOWARD JUDAISM. 


Judaism was respected by the heathen as an old, popular re- 
ligion; and Jehovah, as the God of the Jews, received, particu- 
larly from the different rulers of this country, the honors due 
to the deity of the land’. But the Jews did not respect the 
religions of other people in the same manner, inasmuch as they - 
treated their deities as nonentities, avoided all intercourse with 
foreigners as unclean, and expected that their own only true 
God. would one day triumph over all other nations.?. Hence 


opinion that, though Philo does not mention the Sadducees, there are many references to 
them in his works, whereas the parties whom Philo combats are to be looked for in 
Alexandria (comp. Schreiter in Keil’s u. Tzschirner’s Analecten i. 1, u. ii. 1). Comp. 
Winer ii. 415. 

9 Respecting them see Philo quod omnis probus sit liber, Josephus in several places, 
Plinius Nat. Hist. v.15. J.J. Bellerman’s geschichtl. Nachrichten aus dem Alterthume 
uber Esser u. Therapeuten. Berl. 1821.8. Jos. Sauer de Essenis et Therapeutis disqu. - 
Vratislav. 1829. 8. A. Gfrorer’s Philo und die alexandrinische Theosophie, ii. 299. A. F. 
Dahne’s geschichtl. Darstellung der jiidisch-alexandr. Religionsphilosophie i. 469. Nean- 
der’s K. G. 2te Aufl. i. i. 73. According to Gfrérer, they were Therapeutae who had 
come into Palestine, and whose opinions were there modified. According to Baur 
(Apollonius of Tyana, p. 125), they were Jewish Pythagoreans. Dahne is of opinion that 
the Essenes had at least an Alexandrian basis for their sentiments. Neander, on the 
contrary, thinks that the peculiar tendency which characterized them had been formed 
independently of external circumstances out of the deeper religious meaning of the Old 
Testament, but that subsequently it received foreign, old-oriental, Parsic, and Chaldean, 
but not Alexandrian elements. 

1 Even Alexander is said to have offered sacrifice in the temple at Jerusalem according 
to the direction of the high priest (Joseph. Ant. xi. 8, 5). So also Ptolemy Euergertes 
(c. Apion. ii. 5). _Seleucus Philopator (2 Mace. iii. 1-3) and Augustus (Philo de Legat. ad 
Cajum. p. 1036) appointed a revenue for the daily sacrifices. Vitellius sacrificed in 
Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. xviii. 5, 3). Tertullian. Apolog. c. 26: cujus (Judaeae) et deum 
Victimis, et templum donis, et gentem foederibus aliquaado, o Romani, honorastis. : 

2 Certainly the Jewish idea of the Messiah was known to the heathens in general, 
but we must not derive the measure of this knowledge frum the passages: Suetan. 
Vespas. c. 4: Percrebuerat Oriente toto vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis, ut eo tem- 
pore Judaea profecti rerum potirentur. Tacit. Hist. 5, 13: Pluribus persuasio inerat, 
antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri, eo ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret oriens, profectique 
Judaea rerum potirentur. Both these historians have here manifestly copied Josephus 
(de B. J. vi. 5, 4: jv ypnopde dudiBoroc duotuc év toic lepoig eipnuévocg ypdppaccy, we 
kata Tov katpov éxeivov ard Tic xopac ti¢ abrav apse TIS oikovuévne), a8 is proved not 


- 


48 FIRST PERIOD.—DLY. I—A.D. 1-117. 


they were despised and hated, especially since antiquity was 
accustomed to estimate the power of the gods by the condition 
of the people that served them.* They were most hated by the 
neighboring nations, particularly the Egyptians. In the eyes 
of the proud Romans, they were rather an object of contempt.’ 
We find, therefore, no attempt, under the dominion of the Ro- 
mans, to extinguish this hostile religion, such as that made by 
Antiochus Epiphanes, although, once and again, there seems to 
have been a design to make Roman customs universal in oppo- 
sition to the national prejudices. ‘This hatred and contempt 
produced singular stories respecting the origin and history of 
the Jews,’ as well as absurd notions of their religion;® and 


_. only by the similarity of the words and the common reference to Vespasian, but also the 
express mention of Josephus and his prophecy in Sueton. Vesp. c. 5. But Josephus, in 
this case, gave a Grecian expression to the Jewish notion of the Messiah, and the flatter- 
ing application to Vespasian was made for the purpose of giving importance to the 
writer's nation and himself, and to remove suspicion from them, for the present at least. 
Tacitus makes frequent use of Josephus in his history of the Jews, though he always 
takes a Roman point of view. - 

3 Cicero pro Flacco, c. 28. Sua cuique civitati religio, Laeli, est, nostra nobis. Stanti- 
bus Hierosolymis, pacatisque Judaeis, tamen istorum religio sacrorum a splendore hujus 
imperii, gravitate nominis nostri, majorum institutis abhorrebat: nunc vero hoc magis, 
quod illa gens, quid de imperio nostro sentiret, ostendit armis: quam cara diis immortali- 
bus esset, docuit, quod est victa, quod elocata, quod servata. Apion ap. Joseph. contra 
Apionem, ii. 11. Minucii Felicis Octavius, c.10: The heathen Caecilius says, Judaeorum 
sola et misera gentilitas unuam—Deum—coluerunt; cujus adeo nulla vis nec potestas est, 
ut sit Romanis numinibus cum sua sibi natione captivus. 

* Of Apollonius Molon, a rhetorician of Rhodes, B.c. 70, Josephus says (c. Apion. ii. 14), 
more pév Oc Gbéorg Kai yucavOpdrove Aoidopei, more 8 ad detAiay juiv dverdi~er Kai 
Tobunas.y Eotiv 6rov TéApav Katnyopel Kai Grovoiav’ Aéyer dé Kai advectaroue eivar 


-. tév BapBapwv. Tacit. Hist. v. 5, apud ipsos fides obstinata, misericordia in promptu, sed 


adversus omnes alios hostile odium; c. 8, despectissima pars servientium—teterrima 
gens. Diodor. Sic. xxxiv. p, 524. Philostratus in vita Apollonii, v. c. 33. Juven. Sat. 
xiy. 103. According to Philo (in Flacc. p. 969), there remained among the Egyptians 
mwahala Kai TpoTov Tia yeyevynuévn Tpd¢ "lovdaiovg adxéyGera. Jos. c. Apion. i. 25, 
TOv 68 el¢ Hudc BAaconulov jpsavto Aiytxtlor—airtiac 62 roAAae EXaBov Tod ptceiv Kai 
Goveir, caet. 

5 The oldest sources of these fables are the fragment of Hecataeus Milesius (doubtless 
Abderita), in Photius’s bibl. cod. 154, and the more malignant representation of the 
Egyptian Manetho (about 280 B.c., ap. Joseph. c. Apion. i. 26, comp. 14). The saying 
afterwards repeated with manifold remodelings by the Egyptian Chaeremon (at the time 
of Augustus, ap. Jos. 1. c. c. 32), by Lysimachus (about 100 B.c., ibid. c. 34), Justin (Hist. 
36, 2), and Tacitus (Hist. v.c. 2): Comp. J. G. Miller in the theol. Studien u. Kritiken. 
1843, iv. 893. Josephus wrote his two books against Apion in refutation of these calumnies 
against his countrymen. 

6 Particularly concerning the object of their worship. Many, indeed, saw in Jehovah 
their Zeus or Jupiter: Varro ap. Augustin. de consensu evangel. i. 22. Aristeas de legis 
divinae interpr. historia, p. 3, tov yap mévtwv éxértnv Kal Kriotav Oedv obtor céBovrat, 
Gv kai ravrec, Hpueic 62 waddsoTa, pocovoudlovrec érépwc Zava. According to another 
opinion the Jews worshiped the heaven (Juvenal. Sat. xiv. 97, nil praeter nubes et coeli 


INTRODUCTION II—JEWS. §17. OUT OF PALESTINE. 49 


these in their turn contributed to increase the contempt of which 
they were the offspring. 


§ 17. 


. 


CONDITION OF THE JEWS OUT OF PALESTINE. 


J. Remond Geschichte der Ausbreitung des Judenthums von Cyrus bis auf den ginzlichen 
Untergang des jiid. Staats. Leipz. 1789. 8. Jost’s Gesch.d.Israeliten, Th.2. 8.262. 


The Jewish people were by no means confined to Palestine. 
Only the smaller part of them had availed themselves of the 
permission of Cyrus to return to their native land, and there- 
fore numbers had remained behind in Babylonia, who, doubt- 
less, spread themselves farther toward the east, so that in the 
first century they were very considerable (ov« dAiyae prpiddec, 
Jos. Ant. xv. 3,1). In Arabia, the kings of the Homerites 
(about 100 z.c.) had even adopted the Jewish religion, and sub- 
sequently it had reached the throne of Adiabene, by the conver- 
sion of King Izates, (about 45 a.p., comp. Jos. Ant. xx. 2). 
At the building of Alexandria, Alexander the Great brought a 
colony of Jews to settle there, (Jos. de B. J. ii. 86); more were 
brought by Ptolemy Lagus to Egypt, Cyrene, and Lybia, (Jos. 
Ant. xii. 2, 4); and the Jews were very numerous in these 
places; (1,000,000, Philo in Flace. p. 971. In Alexandria 
two-fifths of the population, ibid. p. 973). By trade they soon 
became rich and powerful." Many Jewish colonists had also 
been carried into Syria by Seleucus Nicanor (Jos. Ant. xii. 3, 
1), especially to Antioch, where, in after times, a great part of 
the population consisted of Jews (Jos. de B. J. vii. 3, 3). An- 
tiochus the Great was the firs? who sent a Jewish colony to 
Phrygia and Lydia (Jos. |. ¢.), and from these two countries 
they had spread themselves not only over the whole of Asia 


numen adorant). Others thought that they worshipeg Bacchus (Plutarch Sympos. iv. Qu. 
5, Tacit. Hist. 5. 5). According to others, the object of adoration was an ass’s head (Apion 
ap. Jos.c. Ap. ii. 7. Tacit. Hist..5. 4. Plut.1.c.) According to. others, a swine (Plutarch 
le. Petronius in fragm.: Judaeus, licet et Porcinum numen adoret, &c.) Comp. the fable 
of the Jews sacrificing every year a Greek, and eating of his flesh (Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 
8). Jo. Jac. Huldrici gentilis obtrectator s. de calumniis gentilium in Judaeos et in 
primaeyos Christianos. Tiguri. 1744. 8, 

1 C. EB. Varges de statu Aegypti provinciae Romanae I. et II. p. Chr. n. saeculis. Gott- 
ingae. 1842. 4. p18, 39, 46. 


VoL. 1——4 


0 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 1-117. 


Minor, but also over Greece. The first Jews in Rome had 
been brought as prisoners of war by Pompey. They afterward 
obtained their freedom (therefore they were styled libertint, 
Philo de legat. ad Caj. p. 1014, Tacit. Ann. ii. 85), received 
permission from Julius Caesar to erect synagogues (Jos. Ant. 
xiv. 10, 8), and soon occupied the greatest part of the city be- 
yond the Tiber (Philo 1. c.). Thus, at the time of Christ it 
was not easy to find a country in the whole Roman empire in 
which the Jews did not dwell (Strabo, xiv. c. 2, Philo legat. ad 
Caj. p. 1031). 

All these widely dispersed Jews (7 d:aomopa) considered Jeru- 
salem as their common capital, the sanhedrim of that place as 
their ecclesiastical supreme court; and sent not only yearly 
contributions in money (didpayya), and offerings to the temple 
(Philo de Monarch. lib. ii. p. 822, in Flace. 971, legat. ad. Caj. 
1014, 1023, 1031, Cicero pro Flacc. 12, Tacit. Hist. 5, 5), 
but also frequently repaired thither to the great festivals (Philo 
de Monarch. lib. ii. p. 821), without detriment being done to 
this common sanctuary by the temple built in Leontopolis (152 
B.c.) by Onias.? They obtained peculiar privileges, not only in 
the places where they settled as colonists at the desire of the 
princes of the country, but Caesar had allowed them the free 
exercise of their religion,* in a series of regulations enacted for 
the purpose, while he granted them several favors in relation to 
their law.‘ But these very distinctions merely served to make 
them still more hated by their fellow-citizens, with whom, 
therefore, they had frequent quarrels. 


2 The temple of Onias was as far from causing a schism among the Jews as the dispute 
between the Pharisees and Sadducees, although the building of it was disapproved by the 
Palestinian Jews. 

3 By this, therefore, their synagogues were put into the class of collegia licita (see above, 
§ 12). Comp. the decree of the Praetors C. Julius ap. Joseph. Ant. xiv. 10,8: T'dio¢ Kai- 
oap, 6 huétepoc otpaTnyoc Kai braroc, év TH dtatdypatt Kwhiwy Ordcove cvvayecbat Kara 
TOALY, "6vovg TObTOVE OK ExGAVCEY OiTE YpHUaTa CULvELogépELY, ObTE GbvdELTVA ToLELY. 
éuoiwe 08 KayO Tote GAove Oidcove Kwhiwv TobTOVE pévouc éExitpéTw KaTa Ta TATPLA 
20n Kai voutma cvvayecbai te Kai iggacbat. So also Augustus (Philo de legat. ad Cajum, 
p. 1035, 1036). 

* Comp. Jos. Ant. xiv. 10, 2, f— Claudius, in his edict, gives briefly what was granted 
them, and what was required of them, (Jos. Ant. xix. 5, 3): "lovdaiovg rove év ravti Td 
b¢’ Quds KoCum Ta TaTpLa E0n dvertkwhitoc ovAdocev,—Kai uA Tag TOV GAA EOvdv 
detctdarpoviac éfovbeviterv. Decreta Romana et Asiatica pro Judaeis ad cultum div.— 
secure obeundum—testituta a Jac, Gronovio. Lugd. Bat. 1712. 8. Decreta Romanoram 
pro Judaeis e Josepho collecta a J. Tob. Krebs. Lips. 1768. 8. Dav. Henr. Levyssohn 
disp. de Jud. sub Caesaribus conditione et de legibus eos spectantibus. Lugd. Bat. 1828. 4. 


INTRODUCTION JEWS. §17. OUT OF PALESTINE. 51 


In the mean time, Judaism had been introduced in many 
ways among the heathen. It is true that only a few became 
complete converts to it by submitting to circumcision (proselytes 
of righteousness) ;° but several, particularly women,’ attached 
themselves to it for the purpose of worshiping Jehovah as the 
one true God, without observing the Mosaic law (proselytes of 
the gate),” which was sufficient for those who were not Jews, 
according to the opinion of the more liberal Jewish expositors.* 
Others, on the contrary, especially in Rome, which longed after 
foreign rites, felt themselves attracted, not so much by the reli- 
gion, as by the religious ceremonial of the Jews. These indi- 
viduals observed Jewish ceremonies without separating them- 
selves on that account from heathen forms of worship, kept 
Jewish festivals, and trusted in Jewish conjurations. There 


5 I. e., right, complete proselytes. Of such speaks Tacitus, Hist. v. 5: Circumcidere 
genitalia instituere, ut diversitate noscantar. Transgressi in morem eorum idem usurpant, 
nec quidquam prius imbuuntur, quam contemnere deos, exuere patriam; parentes, liberos, 
fratres vilia habere. Juvenal. Sat. xiv. 96, ff? 

Quidam sortiti metuentem sabbata patrem, 

Nil praeter nubes, et coeli numen adorant : 
Nee distare putant humana carne suillam, 
Qua pater abstinuit, mox et praeputia ponunt. 
Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges, 
Judaicum ediscunt, et servant, ac metuunt jus, 
Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses. 


A list of existing proselytes is given by Causse in the Museum Haganum I. 549. 

‘6 So almost all the women in Damascus, Joseph. de B. J. ii. 20, 2; so was Fulvia in 
the time of Tiberius, at Rome, vouiuore mpoceAndvOvia roic lovdaixoic, Ant. xviii. 3, 5. 
So were many Judaizers in Syria, de B. J. ii. 18, 2, comp. the inscriptions in Hug, Einl. in 
d. N. T. 3te Anfl. ii. 339. Act. xiii. 50, xvii. 4. Comp. Strabo above, § 14, note 7. 

7 Such was the name originally given to those who were not Jews, but to whom per- 
mission was granted to dwell as sojourners in Palestine, under the condition of observing 
certain laws (Levit. xvii. 8, ff, PWY3 Was 4, Exod. xx. 10; Deut.v. 14). But now, 
under altered circumstances all heathens who attached themselves to Judaism by the 
voluntary observance of those precepts, received the same appellation. These precepts, - 
which, in the opinion of the Jews, were delivered even to Noah (comp. Genesis, ix. 4, ff), 
and in him to the whole human race, are said to be seven. 1. A prohibition of idolatry; 
2. Blasphemy ; 3. The shedding of human blood ; 4. Incest; 5. Theft; 6. The command to 
practice righteousness ; 7. To eat no blood, and no animal in which the blood still remains. 
Bee Seldenus de jure nat. et gent. lib. 1, c. 10. In the New Testament these proselytes 
are called goGotpevor Tov Oedv, ceBbpevoe T. 0. ; 

® The school of Hillel, to which Gamaliel, Paul’s preceptor, belonged, allowed these 
proselytes a part in the kingdom of the Messiah; the school of Shammai excluded them 
from it—both with reference to Ps. ix.18. See E.M. Roeth epistolam vulgo ad Hebraeos 
inscriptam non ad Hebraeos sed ad Ephesios datam esse. Francof. ad M. 1836. 8. p. 117. 
126, ss. At the conversion of King Izates, Ananias was of the milder, Eleazer of the 
stricter views, Joseph. Ant. xx.c.2. The later rabbins follow the opinion of Hillel, as 
they do in‘all flispates between these two schools. Othonis lexicon rabbin. p. 243. Roeth, 
p- 129. 


52 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV¥. I.—A.D. 1-117. 


soon appeared, also, Jewish jugglers, who ministered to this hea~ 
then superstition as conjurors and soothsayers.® 

-At the same time, intercourse with the pagans could not 
exist without exerting some influence on the Jews. It must 
have partly smoothed away many rough points of their na~ 
tional character, and have partly eommunicated to them a great 
portion of the cultivation of the nations among whom they 
lived. A philosophical mode of treating their religion was de~ 
veloped especially at Alexandria, ides” the Ptolemies, in con- 
sequence of the study of Grecian philosophy, and thence a pe~ 
culiar philosophy of religion, which may be traced from Aristo- 
bulus (about 160 B.c.), through the Book of Wisdom,’ and the 
Therapeutae,” to its most distinguished representative Plo 


® On account of many impostors of this kind, Tiberius expelled the Jews trom Rome; 
Jos. Ant. xviii. 3,5. The Jewish festivals were kept by the heathen, Horat. Sat-i-9, 69 
hodie tricesima sabbata’ yin’ tu 
Curtis Judaeis oppedere? Nulla mihi, inquam, 
Religio est. At mi: sum paulo infirmior, unus 
Multorum. 





The women m particular frequented them. 

Cultaque Judaeo septima sacra Syro (Ovid. Art. Amat. i. 75); ef. Selden de jere nat. e¢ 
gent. lib. iii. c. 15, ss. Gottl. Wernsdorf de gentilium sabbato. Viteb. 1722. 4. For ex- 
amples of Jewish conjurors see Acts xix. 13. Joseph. Antiq. viii. 2, 5 (Eleazer, who before’ 
Vespasian gave proofs of exorcism). Plinii Natur. Hist. xxx.c.2: Est et alia magices fac- 
tio a Mose et Janne et Jotape Judaeis pendens.. Celsus accused the Jews (Orig. c. Cels- 
i. p. 21), abtoic céBeww dyyéAove, kai yonteig Tpookeicbat, 7 Ts 6 rip aitoig yéyover 
ESN YITHS: In regard to Jewish soothsayers see Juven. Sat. vi. 543: 

Arcanam Judaea tremens mendicat in aurem, 

Interpres legum Solymarum, et magna sacerdos 

Arboris, ac summi fida internuntia coeli: 

Tmplet et illa manum, sed parcius. Aere minute 

Qualiacunque voles Judaei somnia vendunt. 
In this'way the Jewish names for deity came into the formulae of heathen impostors, thougit 
at a later period; and were supposed to possess a peculiar magical power in union with 
the heathen appellations of God (Origines c. Cels. iv. p. 183, v. p. 262), and were found on 
gems; see my remarks in the Theol. Stud. u. Kritiken. 1830, Heft 2, p. 403. To this in- 
fluence of Judaism Seneca refers, de superstitionibus (ap. Augustin. de civit. Dei, vi. 11) ; 
Cum interim usque eo sceleratissimae gentis consuetado convaluit, ut per omnes jam ter: 
ras, recepta sit, victi victoribus leges dederunt. Illi tamen causas ritus sui noverunt, sed 
major pars populi facit, quod cur faciat ignorat. It might be expected that with this hea- 
then tendency many should make a mere external profession of Judaism. Hence we can 
explain why the Talmudists passed so severe a judgment on the Pharisees, although the 
latter were still very zealous in making proselytes at the time of Christ (Matth. xxiii. 15) : 
Proselyti impediunt adventum Messiae, sunt sicut scabies Israeli, &c. Othonis lexicon 
rabbin. p. 491. Wagenseilii Sota, p. 754. 
. 10 In-regard to those traces, see generally, Gfrérer’s a ii. and Dahne’s jiidisch-alex. 
Religionsphilosophie, ii. 

11 Philo de vita contemplativa. The writings of Bellermann and Sauer mentioned in § 15, 
note Gfrorerii.280. Dahne,i.443. Later writers, by drawing unhistorical conclusions, 
have discovered Christian ascetics inthe Therapeutae. So Eusebius Hist. eccles. ii. 17; 


INTRODUCTION II—JEWS. §18. SAMARITANS. BS 


(7 41 a..)” . Though Philo’s Platonic Judaism in this com- 
plete form was only the property of a few, yet the general ideas 
contained in it were widely diffused among the Hellenic Jews 
at that time, and afterward gained an important influence over 
the philosophy of religion which formed itself within the bosom 
of Christianity. This is especially the case with regard to the 
doctrine of Philo concerning the Logos, the God revealing him- 
self in the finite, in whom the Mosaic creative word, and the 
Platonic ideal world, were united.'* 


re 
fFHE SAMARITANS. 


The mixed people’ whe had grown up into a society after the 


and-all succeeding authors except Photius, cod. 104. The same opinion was held after the 
Reformation by most of the older historians of the Cetholic and Dpiscopal English church 
(see the writings on both sides in Triglandii syntagma, see above, § 15, note 6), even 
Bern. de Montfaucon (not. ad Philon. de vit. contempl.), and L. A. Maratori (anecdot. 
graec. p..330). . The dispute of the former respecting this point, with Jo. Bouhier: Lettres 
pour et contre sur la fameuse question, si les solitaires appellez Therapeutes étoient 
Chrétiens. Paris. 1712. 8. Even Philo is said to have been on friendly terms with Peter 
at Rome, under Claudius (ei¢ ducdiav é/eiv Iérpw, Luseb. 1. c. Hieron. catal. 11), from 
which afterward erose the fable that he had embraced Christianity and afterward forsook 
it (Photius cod. 105). Cf. Mangey praef. in Phil. Opp. ' 

: 12 Opp. ed. A. Turnebus, Paris. 1552, in an improved edition by Dan. Hoeschelius. 

Col. Allobrog. 1613. Paris. 1640. Francof. 1691. fol. (citations are usually made accord- 
ing to the pages of the.last two editions, which coincide in this respect). Thom. Mangey. 
Lond. 1742. 2 voll. fol. A manual edition by A. F. Pfeiffer. Erlang. 1785. 5 voll. 8, in- 
complete. In late.times Angelo Mai found im the Greek language the writings of Philode 
festo cophini and de parentibus colendis (Philo et Virgilii interpretes.. Mediol. 1818, 8vo); 
end J..B. Aucher published in Latin several treatises preserved in an Armenian version 
(de providentia and de animalibus. Venet. 1822. fol. Philonis Jud. paralipomena Armena. 
ibid. 1826. fol.) All this has been taken into the latest manual edition by E. Richter. 
Lips. 1828-30. 8..tom. 8. Comp. F. Creuzer zur Kritik der Schriften des Juden Phila, in 
the theol. Studien u. Krit. 1832. i. 1.. Dahne’s Bemerkungen iiber die Schriften des Philo. 
das. 1833, iv. 984. Philo’s Lehrbegriff von E. H. Stahl (in Eichhorn’s Bibl. d. bibl. Lit. iv. 
5, 770). C. G. L. Grossmann quaestiones Philoneae. Lips. 1829.4. A. Gfrorer’s Philo 
u. die alexandrin. Theosophie. 2 Thle. Stuttgart. 1931. 8. .A. ¥. Dahne’s geschichtl 
Darstellung der jiidisch-alexandrin. Religionsphilosophie. 2 Abthl. Halle. 1834. 8. 

13-I can not agree with the prevailing view, that the strictly monotheistic Philo thought 
ef the Logos as hypostatically different from God. Since the infinite can not be revealed 
in the finite, God was under the necessity, so to speak, of making himself finite for this 
purpose, i. e., of separating from his own infinite perfections a finite measure of ideas a 
powers. God, in this aspect, is the Logos. Accordingly, the Logos is less than God, the 
revealed God less than deity in himself, but not, on that account, a hypostasis' different 

2 In opposition to Hengstenberg, who (Beitr. zur Einleit. ins. A. T. ii. 1, 3) affirms, that 


5A FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. 1—A.D. 1-117. 


destruction of the kingdom of Israel, in the tract belonging 
to it (2 Kings xvii. 24, ff., 0°13, Sapapeitar), had constantly 
been an object of detestation to the Jews, because of their relig- 
ion, which had been at first compounded of Judaism and hea- 
thenism. ‘The Samaritans, indeed, under the direction of the 
Jewish priest Manasseh, supported by the Persian viceroy San-~ 
ballat, had retained the Pentateuch, (409 s.c.), erected a tem- 
ple on Gerizim, established a levitical priesthood—in short, the 
whole of Judaism as it then was;? but all served merely to in- 
crease the hatred of the Jews against them, although they were 
united from this time onward, not only by neighborhood, but 
also by a similar religion, and a series of like fortunes. This 
hatred entertained by the Jews, which the Samaritans seemed 
not to have returned with like virulence, was not abated in 
their native land by the destruction of the temple on Gerizim 
by John Hyrcanus (109 z.c.); it was transferred to Egypt 
where Jewish and Samaritan colonies had been planted by Alex- 
ander and Ptolemy Lagus,* and has continued to the latest 
times. 

The Samaritans held fast by Judaism, as it had come to them 
by Manasseh, with rigid strictness; and therefore the later de- 
velopments of it among the Jews remained unknown to them, 
as they did also to the Sadducees.* Besides, in the history of 


the Samaritans were originally a heathen people, who accommodated themselves by 
degrees to the Mosaic institution, see Dr. Kalkar’s treatise, die Samaritaner ein Mischvolk, 
in Pelt’s theolog. Mitarbeit. Jahrg. 3, Heft 3. (Kiel. 1840) p. 24.—[Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of 
Biblical Literature, art. Samaritans.} ; 

2 Nehem. xiii. 28. Comp. Joseph. Ant. xi. 7, 2. 8, 2. 4.6, who places ineorrectly the 
defection of Manasseh under Darius Codomannus, instead of Darius Nothus. Prideaux 
hist. des Juifs. ii. 397. Jahn bibl. Arehaologie, ii. 1, 278. G. Gesenius de pentateuchi 
Samaritani origine, indole et auctoritate. Halae. 1815. 4. 

3 Samaritan warriors were transplanted into Thebais by Alexander (Joseph. Ant. xi. 
8, 6), into Lower Egypt and Alexandria by Ptolemy Lagus (Jos. 1. c. xii. 1). A controversy 
between the Jews and Samaritans at Alexandria is related by Josephus, |. c. xiii. 3, 4. 

* Concerning their doctines see Philastrius de haer. cap. 7. Epiphanius de haer. 9. 
Leontius de sectis, c.8. Their pentateuch was printed along with the Samaritan transla- 
tion in the Paris Polyglott, 1629. A more accurate knowledge of their condition and doc- 
trines in modern times has been obtained from the letters of the Samaritans to Jos. Scaliger, 
1589 ; to men at Oxford, through the medium of Robert Huntingdon, 1671; to Job Ludolf,, 
1684 (see these letters in Eichhorn’s Repertorium ix. and xiii.); and to De Sacy (since 
1808), comp. Sylv. de Sacy mémoire sur l'état actuel des Samaritains. Paris. 1812 (trans- 
lated into German in Staudlin’s and Tzschirner’s Archiv. for Kg. I. iii. 40). These were 
revised, and along with the recent letters containing two of 1820, republished by De Sacy 
in the Notices et Extraits des manuscrits de la Bibl. roy. T. xii. Paris. 1829. In addition, 
a letter of 1700 was made known by Hamaker in the Archief voor kerkelijke Geschiedenis 
door Kist en Royaards, v. 1 (Leiden. 1834). Besides this, Samaritan poems exist, which 


INTRODUCTION IL.—JEWS. §18. THE SAMARITANS. 55 


this people there was no ground for the same degree of national 
arrogance and hatred of every thing foreign as existed among 
the Jews.° And while among the Jews the extravagant na- 
tional feeling fostered a more sensuous apprehension of the doc- 
trine of a special Divine providence in favor of their nation, and 
of the Messiah, and by this means favored a worldly view of 
the doctrines of religion; that smaller measure of national pride 
existing among the Samaritans was the cause of their looking 
at Judaism more in its spiritual aspect. ‘This tendency was 
certainly promoted by the connection of the Samaritans with 
those of the same faith who had settled in Alexandria, and who 
were then partakers of Grecian culture. Still, however, the 
spiritual tendency which characterized the constantly oppressed 
people received no scientific improvement. But yet in Samaria 
there appeared in the first century in succession three founders 


belong to the times of the Arabs, and were first used in -Gesenius de Samaritanorum 
theologia ex fontibus ineditis comm. (W eibnachtsprogramm, Halle. 1822. 4), and subse- 
quently published: Carmina Samaritana e codd. Londinensibus et Gothanis ed. et illustr. 
Guil. Gesenius. Lips. 1824. 8. 

5 Hence Josephus blames them (Ant. xi. 8, 6): eiciv of Sauapeic¢ Torodtor THY odatr, 
év pév taic cvudopaic dvtac Tove "lovdaiove dpvotytar ovyyeveic every, duodoyotvTec 


Tote THy GAjGevav. Grav dé Te wepi adbToi¢ Aaurpor idworr éx TbyN¢, ESaigunc Exixnddoww 


abtév TH KoLtvwvia, mpoanKew avtoic Aéyovtec, Kai éx TOV "lwonxov yeveadoyodyTec 
atitovc éxyévav ’Edpainov kai Mavacaod. So, too, they are said to have professed them- 
selves to Alexander, ’EGpaior pév eivat, ypnuativerv 0’ of év Xuxivorg Lidavior (Joseph. L. 


-¢.). On the contrary, to Antiochus Epiphanes as 6vtec Td avéxabev Xiddvi01 (Joseph. 


Ant. xii. 5, 5). In like manner, they are said to have escaped threatening danger under 
this king by calling their temple iepov Avd¢ E2Anviov, but without making other change 
in their worship, Joseph. 1. c. cf. 2 Macc. vi. 2. ; 

6 In the later Samaritan writings a progressive development of several doctrines by the 
influence of the Alexandrian peculiarities can not be mistaken. The characteristics of 
Samaritan theology are strict Monotheism, aversion to all Anthropomorphism (Gesenius 
de theol. Sam. p. 12, ss:), both which were manifested even in their Pentateuch (Gesenius 
de pentat. Sam. p. 58, ss.). According to Leontius de sectis, they denied the doctrine of 
angels, i. e., the improved Jewish doctrine regarding them. In the later poetical writings 
angels appear as uncreated influences proceeding from God pan (ron Ovvapete), 
comp. Gesenius de theol. Sam. p. 21, which belongs to a gnostic development, of which 
the first trace appears to be in Acts viii.10. They magnified Moses and the law, rejecting 
all the later prophetic writings. The Sabbath and circumcision were regarded as the 
most important pledges of the covenant with Jehovah. The temple on Gerizim was the 
only true one (Deuteron. xxvii. 4, 3p altered into O'J33. Gesen. de Pent. Sam. 


_p-61). According to the fathers, they denied immortality and the resurrection, i. e., they 


maintained the insensible state of the soul in Sheol. We find among them afterward a 
ressurection to a life entirely different from the present (Gesenius de theol. Sam. p. 38). 
The Messiah (271W71 or 21 Ges. l.c. p. 44: reductor, conversor), probably a *]DV° [2 . 
will lead the people to repentance, and then to happiness, the nations will believe in 
him, and by him will be wonoyer to the law, and to the temple on Gerizim. (Compare 
John iv. 25.) 


56 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 1-117. 


of sects, of whom Dositheus’ departed from the prevalent Sa- 
maritan Judaism in a very few particulars. Simon Magus* 
drew the germ of his syncretic magical system from the philo- 
sophical opinions then current, probably at Alexandria, and un- 
folded them farther, instigated, perhaps, by Christianity, which 
had lately appeared. In the third place, Menander,’ the disci- 
ple of Simon Magus, departed little from the footsteps of his 
master. All three left behind them sects which continued for 
several centuries. The followers of Simon and Menander were 
often confounded with Christians by the heathen,’ and actually 
endeavored to insinuate themselves into the Christian church 
after Christianity had become the prevailing religion." 


7 Moshemii institt. hist. Christ. majores, Saec. i. 376, ss. *NNDIT gave himself out 
to be the prophet promised in Deut. xviii. 18. The church fathers falsely ascribe to him 
many peculiar doctrines which were held by all the Samaritans. (According to Jewish 
tradition, the priest sent by Sennacherib, 1 Kings xvii. 27, 28, was one R. Dosthai. Dru- 
sius dé tribus sectis Jud. iii. 4._ It is probable, therefore, that the two persons were con- 
founded. (A strict, ascetic life, and an overscrupulous observance of the Sabbath were 
peculiar to him. Origen. de prince. iv. c. 17, quo quisque corporis situ in principio sabbathi 
inventus fuerit, in eo ad vesperum usque ipsi permanendum esse, manifestly a literal in- 
terpretation of Exod. xvi. 29. As late as the year 588, the Dositheans and Samaritans had 
a controversy in Egypt about Dent. xviii. 18. (Eulogius ap, Phot. bibl. cod. 230.) 

8 Mosheim, 1. c. p. 289-432. Walch’s Historie der Ketzereien, i. 135, ff. Neander’s 
gnostische Systeme. Berlin. 1818. 8. 338, ff. Leben u: Lehre Simons d. Magiers, by Dr. 
A. Simson (in Illgen’s Zeitschr. fir histor. Theol. 1841, iii. 15). Act. viii. 9, 10, Diuw»— 
payebav Kai &iordv Td O6voc tie LZapapeiac, Aéywor eivai tiva éavtov péyav. By the 
people he was looked upon as 7 déivayuic Tod Oeod } weyGAn (on cf. not. 6). Probably 
the Livwv ’lovdaioc, Kimpioc dé yévoc, wayor elvat oxnxtopevoc apud Joseph. Ant. xx. 7, 
2. Fabulous accounts of his death at Rome (first found in the Apostol. Constitut. vi. 9, and 
in Arnobius, ii. c. 12) were perhaps occasioned by the occurrence related in Sueton. in Ne- 
rone, c.12. Juvenal. Sat. iii. 79, 80. The statue on the island in the Tiber, as Justin re- 
lates, Apol. maj. ¢.26 and 56, with the inscription Simoni sancto Deo, was found in 1574; 
and has on it, Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio Sacrum, &c. (See Baronius ad ann. 44 no. 55.) 
On Semo Sancus or Sangus, comp. Ovid. Fast.vi.213. Justin’s mistake is apparent, al- 
though Baronius, Thirlby, Maranus, especially Fogginius de Romano Divi Petro itinere et 
episcopatu, Florent. 1741. 4to, p, 247, ss., wish to justify his account; and Braun (S. Justini 
M. Apologiae. Bonnae. 1830. p. 97) has promised a new defense of it. The followers of 
Simon must be regarded as Samaritan Gnostics (Justin M. Apol. maj. c. 26: kai cyedov 
wavreg wev Lapapeic, dAiyor b2 Kai év GA2ore EOveciv, dc Tov TpOTov Bedv éExeivoy duodo- _ 
yoovrec, éxetvov kai mpookvvotcr), whose system may have been developed parallel with 
the Christian Gnosis. Among Christians Simon has always been looked upon as the mas- 
ter and progenitor of all heretics (Irenaeus adv. haer. i. 27, ii. praef.), and although he never 
was a Christian, yet, in later times, he was thought to be the first heresiarch. In the 
Clementines he is the representative of Gnosis generally, and the system there attributed 
to him is a compound of the most striking Gnostic positions, and must not be considered 
genuine (see Baur's christl. Gnosis, p. 302). 

° Mosheim. 1. c. 432-438. 

10 Justin. Apol. ii. p. 70. 

11 Regarding the Simonians see Euseb. Hist. eccl. ii, 1, 4. For the Menandrians, iii. 
26, 2. 


” 


INTROD. Il. §19. RELATION OF THE TIMES TO CHRISTIANITY. 57 


§ 19. 


RELATION OF THE TIMES TO CHRISTIANITY IN ITS INFANCY. 


From the view that has been given it may be seen, that the 
popular religions of the heathen had become superannuated at 
the time of Christ, and that unbelief and superstition were on 
the point of putting an end to all true religion. It is further 
apparent, that Judaism, losing more and more its spiritual char- 
acter, threatened to sink down in externalities. Under these 
circumstances many heathens must have longed for a religion 
- which put an end to their doubts and agitations, satisfied the 

demands of their moral nature, and afforded them consolation 
and inward peace. ‘The circumstance of Christianity coming 
from the East, whose mystical religions had at that time at- 
tracted general attention to itself, must have facilitated at least 
the introduction of it. Not could it be otherwise than that 
many Jews felt the emptiness of their ceremonial service, espe- 
cially as they had been already guided to a more spiritual wor- 
ship of God by many passages in their own prophets. On the 
other hand, expectations of the Messiah prepared the way for 
Christianity among the Jews. 

But however much there was in the circumstances of these 
times which must have promoted Christianity, there was not 
less to obstruct it. Among the Jews, national pride, earthly 
hopes of Messiah, and habituation to an almost external relig- 
ion; among the heathen, unbelief as well as superstition, which 
prevailed at this time, the stain attaching to Jewish origin, and 
the political grounds which, in the universal opinion, rendered 
it necessary to abide by the national religion. Christianity 
could reckon on toleration on the part of the state, agreeably to 
thé principles of the Romans, only as long as it was confined 
to the Jewish people. But a religion which, like the Jewish, 
did not only declare all other national religions false, but was 

likewise gathering adherents among all nations in a more sus- 
picious degree than the Jewish, and was threatening to extin- 
guish all others, could not be endured by the Roman govern- 
ment without an abandonment of the old state religion, The 


58 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 1-117. 


toleration which all philosophical systems and foreign supersti- 
tions found at Rome could not, therefore, be expected by Chris- 
tianity ;' for an external observance of the state religion was 
at least consistent with the nature of such systems and super- 
_ Stitions.’ 





FIRST CHAPTER. 
THE LIFE OF JESUS. 


J. J. Hess Lebensgeschichte Jesu, 3 Bde. Ste Aufl.  Zitrich. 
1822 u. 23. 8. The same: Lehre, Thaten, und Schicksale 
unseres Herrn, v. verschiedenen Seiten beleuchtet. 2 Halft- 
en. 3te Aufl. Zirich. 1817. 8. J. G. Herder vom Er- 

_ léser der Menschen nach unsern 3 ersten Evangelien. Riga. 
1796. 8. The same: von Gottes Sohn der Welt Hciland, 
nach Johannis Evangel. Riga. 1797. 8. J. Ch. Greiling 
das Leben Jesu von Nazareth. Halle. 1815. 8. H. E.G. 
Paulus das Leben Jesu, als Grundlage einer reinen Gesch. d. 
Urchristenthums. Heidelb, 1828. 2 Bde.8. Dr. A. Hase 
das Leben Jesu. Ein Lehrbuch zuniachst fir akadem. Vor- 
lesungen. Leipz. 1829. 3te Aufl. 1840. 8.—Dr. Strauss’s 
Leben Jesu has given a new impulse to a scientific treatment 
of the subject. Tibingen. 1835, 36. 4te Aufl. 1840. 2 
Bde. 8. The fruits of it are especially A. Neander’s Leben 
Jesu Christi. Hamburg. 1837 (4te Aufl. 1845). 8. Chr. 
F. vy. Ammon Gesch. d. Lebens Jesu mit steter Rucksicht 
auf die vorhandenen Quellen. Bd.2. Leipzig 1842—4. 8, 


F. V. Reinhard Versuch jjber den Plan, den der Stifter der 
christl. Religion zum Besten der Menschen entwarf. 5te 
Ausg. with additions by Heubner. Wittenb. 1830. 8. G. 


1 Although the Christian apologists often appeal to it, Justini M. Apol. maj. c. 18, 24, 26, 
Tertulliani Apologeticus, c. 24, 46. 

2 In opposition to the wrong views taken by Voltaire Traité sur la tolérance, 1763, c. 8-10, 
(Oeuvres éd. Deux-Ponts. Tom. 40, p. 271, ss.), relative to the toleration of the Romans, 
and the exclusive fault of the Christians in bringing persecutions on themselves, Hegewisch 
made very just remarks in his treatise on the epoch in Roman history most favorable te 
numanity. Hamburg. 1800. p. 173. 


CHAP. I—LIFE OF JESUS. § 20. CHRONOLOGY. 59 


J. Planck Gesch. d. Christenth. in der Periode seiner ersten 
Einfihrung in die Welt durch Jesum und die Apostel. 
Gottingen. 1818. 2 Bde. 8. 


J. A. G. Meyer Versuch einer Vertheidigung und Erlaiterung 
der Geschichte Jesu und der Apostel allein aus griech. und 
rém. Profanscribenten. Hannover. 1805. 8. 


§ 20. 


CHRONOLOGICAL DATA RESPECTING THE LIFE OF JESUS. 


J. F. Wurm’s astron. Beitrige zur genaherten Bestimmung des Geburts u. Todesjahres 
Jesu, in Bengel’s Archiv. fiir d. Theol, II. 1; 261. R. Anger de temporum in <Actis 
Apost. ratione diss. c.1, de anno quo Jesus in coelum ascenderit. Lips. 1830.8. F. Piper 
de externa vitae J. Chr. chronologia recte constituenda. Gottingae. 1835. 4. K. Wieseler’s 
chronolog. Synopse der vier Evangelien. Hamburg. 1843. 8.1 


The only definite date in the evangelical history’ is in Luke 
iii. 1, relating to the appearance of John the Baptist.* On the 
supposition that Jesus appeared in public half a year after John, 
as he was born half a year after him, the designation of his age 
in Luke iii. 23 gives nearly the time of his birth, which, per- 
haps, may be still more closely determined by the circumstance 
that it must have happened before the death of Herod ( shortly 


1 According to Wieseler, Christ was born in February 750 a.v. (4 B.c.), baptized in 
spring or summer 780, (27 A.D.), cracified on the 7th April 783 (30 a.p.). A work so acute 
and learned as that of Wieseler can not be sufficiently characterized ina few words. The 
exact coincidence, however, of different investigations produces more doubt than convic- 
tion, since the separate data may be bent, on account of their vacillating nature, in subser- 
vience to one object, without completely removing scruples in regard to them. In particu- 
lar, Goe/, in Luke iii. 23, p. 126, appears to be taken too strictly ; it is incredible that the 
chronological designation of Luke iii. 1, should reach to the captivity of the Baptist, p. 297 ; 
and the computation of the Jewish calendar, taken from Wurm for the purpose of ascer- 
taining the year of Jesus’ death, appears to be wholly uncertain, according to Wurm’s ex- 
planations. 

2 Doubtful chronological dates are: Luc. i. 5, é¢quepia ’AGid (cf. 1 Chron. xxiv. 10. 
Jos. Scaliger de emendat. temporum. App. p. 54. Wieseler, S.140. Comp. Paulus Comm, 
liber die drei ersten Evang. i. 36, ff. Luc. ii. 2, the Census of Quirinus (cf. Jos. Ant. 
Xviii. i. 1. Paulus i. 141, ff. On the contrary, P. A. E. Huschke iiber den zur Zeit d. Ge- 
burt J. Chr. gehaltenen Census. Breslau 1840. 8. Wieseler, S. 49. Comp. Hoeck’s rém. 
Gesch. vom Verfall d. Republik b. Constantin. i. ii. 412).—Joh. ii. 20. The building of the 
eee (cf. Jos. Ant. xv. 11, 1, xx. 9,7. Lampe, Paulus, and Liicke on John. Wieseler, 

8.165). 

3 Augustus died 19th thnietnts the year 14 ofour era. and thus the 15th year of Tiberius’s 
reign fell between the 19th August, 28, and the 19th August, 29 (781-2, AU. mes Wurm in 
Bengel’s Archiv. ii. 5. 


66 FIRST PERIGOD.—D1IyV. I—AD. 1-117. 


before the passover, 750 «.v.), Matth. ii. 1, 19.4 Even in the 
first centuries accounts of the year of Jesus’ birth are given ; 
but the Romish abbot Dionysius Exiguus (525) reckoned, in- 
dependently of them, the period of the incarnation for the pur- 
pose of fixing by it the years in his table for Easter, making 
the first year from the incarnation coincide with the year 754 
a.u. of the Varronian computation.® This Dionysian era, applied 
first of all under the Anglo-Saxons,’ then by the Frankish kings 
Pepin and Charlemagne, begins at least four years after the true 
date of Christ’s birth.* The day of birth can not be determined.’ 

The ministry of Jesus was supposed by many of the older 
churck fathers, after the example of the Alexandrians, to have 


* On the year of Herod’s death see Klaiber’s Studien d. evangel. Geistlichkeit Wir- 
temberg’s, i. 1, 50. Wurm in the same, i. ii. 208. A list of the various opinions concerning — 
the year of Christ’s birth may be seen in Fabricii bibliographia antiquaria, ed. 2, Hamb. 
1716, 4to, p. 187, ss., continued in F. Miinter’s der Stern der Weisen u. s. w. Kopenh. 
1827, p. 109. The latest important investigations unite in the year 747 a.u. So Henr. 
Sanclementii de vulgaris aerae emendatione libb. iv. Romae. 1793. fol., solely on historical 
grounds. Minter, on the same grounds, and, also, because he regards with Keppler the 
star of the wise men as the great conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces. 
which happened on that year. Ideler Chronol. ii. 394, ff., Piper 1. c., Schubert Lebrb. d. 
Sternenkunde, s. 226, Winer bibl. Realwdrterbuch, ii. 614, assent to these results. Com- 
pare, however, on the other side, Wurm in Klaiber’s Studien, i. ii. 211, ff 

% Irenaeus, iii. 25, and Tertull. adv. Jud. 8, give the 41st year of Augustus, 751 a.v. On 
the other hand, Clemens. Alex. Strom. i. p. 339, the 28th year (namely, after the conquest 
of Egypt), with whom agrees Euseb. bist. eccl. i. 5, Epiphan. haer. li 22, and Orosius 
histor. i. 1, the 42d year, 752 a.u.—Sulpicius Severus hist. sacr. ii. 27, gives the 33d year of 
Herod, Coss. Sabinus and Rufinus (which does not suit, as Sab. and Ruf. were consuls 751 
4.U. Herod died after a reign of 37 years, 750 a.u. An Egyptian monk, Panodorus (after 
400), placed the birth of Christ in the year 5493 of his aera, i.e, 754 a.u. (Ge. Syncelli 
chronographia, ed. Paris, p. 25, 326). 

® The Incarnatio, cdépxworc, always means in the fathers the annunciation. Dionysius, 
therefore placed the birth of Christ in the conclusion of the first year of his era. When 
first about the time of Charlemagne, the beginning of the year was made to coincide with 
the 25th of December, the incarnation appears to have been taken as synonymous with the 
nativity. See Sanclementius, iv.c.8  Ideler’s Chronologie, ii. 381, ff. 

7 Ethelbert, king of Kent, dated first of all an original document anno ab incarnatione 
Christi DCV. cf. Codex diplomaticus aevi Saxonici, opera J. M. Kemble. T.- i. (Lond. 
1839. 8.) p. 2. Afterward the venerable Bede used this era in his historical works. 

8 G. A. Hamberger de epochae christianae ortu et auctore. Jenae. 1688. 4 (in Martini 
thesaur. dissertatt. T. iii. P. i. p. 241).. Jo. G. Jani. historia aerae Dionysianae. Viteb. 
1715. 4 (also in his opuscula ad hist. et chronolog. spectantia ed. Klotz. Halae. 1769). Ide- 
ler’s Chronologie, ii. 366, ff. 

9 Clem. Alex. Strom. i p. 340, relates that some regarded the 25th of Pachon, (20th May), 
others the 24th or 25th Pharmuthi, (the 19th or 20th April), as the birth-day. After the 6th 
of January, solemnized as a day of baptism by the followers of Basilides, was kept by the 
Oriental Christians since'the third century as the day of baptism and birth, people began 
to keep this day as the true day of birth, (Epiphan. haer. li. 21). After the 25th December 
was solemnized in the fourth century in the west, as the birth-festival, this day came soop 
$ be looked upon as the day of birth, (Sulpic. Sever. hist. sacr. ii. 27). 


CHAP. [—LIFE of JESUS. § 20, CHRONOLOGY. 61 


continued one year, agreeably to Isaiah lxi. 1, 2, comp. Luke 
iv. 19 (évavrov Kvpiov dexrév).° On this was founded the hy 
pothesis, which became almost traditional in the ancient church, 
that Jesus was crucified in his thirtieth year, in the consulship of 
Rubellius Geminus and Fafius Geminus" (in the fifteenth year of 
Tiberius, 29th of the Dionysian era). But, according to the gos- 
pel of John ii. 13 (v. 1), vi. 4, xi. 55, three, or perhaps four pass~ 
overs occurred during the public ministry of Christ. It must, 
therefore, have continued more than two years, and may, per- 
haps, have extended over three. Thus, the year of his death 
falls between 31 and 33 aer. Dionys., making his age from 
thirty-four to thirty-eight years. Even if we could agree on 
the preliminary question whether the Friday on which Jesus 
died was the day before the passover, or the first day of the 
passover,’? yet, amid the uncertainty of the Jewish calendar of 
that time, an astronomical reckoning of the year of his death 
can scarcely be established.* 


10 So the Valentinians, (Irenaeus, ii. 38, 39), in opposition to whom Irenaeus puts forth 
the singular assertion that Jesus was baptized in his thirtieth year, but did not appear as a 
teacher till between his fortieth and fiftieth (John viii. 57), and then taught three years. 
One year, however, was adopted by Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 340. Origenes, hom. 32 in 
Lucam, and de princip. iv. On the other hand, c. Cels. if. p. 397, and Comment. in Matth. 
xxiv. 15, he says, that Judas was not three entire years with Jesus. Auct. Clementin. 
hom. 17 in fine. Julius Africanus (ap. Hieronym. in Dan. ix.). Philastrius haer- 106. Cyrill. 
Alex. in Esaiam, c. 32. Some moderns have attained fo a simular result in another way. 
Priestley’s Harmony of the Evangelists in Greek, 1777. Haenlein progr. de temporis quo 
Jesus cum apostolis versatus est duratione. Erlang. 1796. 4to. 

11 Tertull. adv. Jud. 8 (but comp. adv. Marcion. i. 15). Lactant. institutt. iv. 10. Augus- 
tin. de civ. Dei. xviii. 54, de trinit. iv. 5 (according to Tertull. and August. Il. cc. and accor- 
ding to the old Acta Pilati in Epiphan. haer. 1. 1, he was crucified the 8th of the Kalends 
of April, on the 25th of March the day of the vernal equinox, comp. Thilo cod. apocr. N. T. 
i. 496. Wieseler, S. 390). That Christ was thirty years old: Hippolytus Portuensis in 
canone paschali. Chronicon anonymi (in Canis. lect. antiq. T. ii.) c. 17 u. 18. Hieronym. 
epist. 22. ad Eustochium. Augustin. epist. 80 and 99. Comp. Petavii rationarium temporum 
‘(ed. Ludg. 1745). P. ii. p. 266, ss. 

12 The first three evangelists designate the last supper as the passover (Matth. xxvi. 
17, ss., Mark xiv. 12, Luke xxii. 7), and hence it has been usually assumed in the West- 
ern Church that Christ was crucified on the first day of the passover. On the contrary, the 
day of Christ's death was according to John xiii. 1, 29, xviii. 28, xix. 14, 31, the day before 
the passover. The latter is followed by Tertullian, adv. Jud. c. 8, the Greeks, Scaliger, 


Casaubon, Capellus, Lampe, Kuinoel, &c. It is strongly in favor of the latter hypothesis . 


that the first day of the passover can never fall on a Friday, at least according to the pres- 
ent calendar of the Jews. See Ideler’s Chronologie, Bd. i. p. 519. Probably the account 
of the first three evangelists is to be explained by the circumstance, that they took the 
last supper of Jesus to be the Christian passover; see Theile in Winer’s Krit. Journat 
der Theol. Literat. ii. 153, f£., v. 129, ff. Comp. Hase’s Leben Jesu, p. 167. [Bibliotheca 
Sacra, new series, 1845, an article by Robinson.] 

12 Bynaeus de morte #.C. libb. 3. Amstel. 1691, 98. 3 voll. 4. Paulus iber die Méglich 


62 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I=A.D. 1-117. 


§ 21. 


HISTORY OF THE YOUTH OF JESUS. 


The history of Jesus’ life before his public appearance is very 
obscure,’ and affords no disclosures in relation to the important 
question of the mode and progress of his spiritual development. 
_. Modern scholars have endeavored to supply this deficiency by 
conjectures, and have attributed a decided influence on his char- 
acter, sometimes to the doctrines of the Essenes,? sometimes to 
those of the Sadducees,* sometimes to a combination of Phari- 
saism and Sadduceism,‘ sometimes to the Alexandrian-Jewish 
education. But such a spirit could not have received its direc- 
tion from any school, and least of all from the schools of those 
times, which were better adapted to fetter the spirit, partly by 
their literal externality, partly by their fanatical idealism, than 
to prepare it for a clear and great self-development.® On the 
contrary, the reading of the prophets of the Old Testament must 
have quickened in his kindred spirit a religious feeling as spir- 
itual as that of the time was literal and carnal, and must have 


keit Jesu Todesjahr zu bestimmen, in his Comment. iiber das N.T. iii. 784. Wurm in 
Bengel's Archiv. ii. 261. 

! Chr. Fr. Ammon’s bibl. Theologie. Bd. 2, (2te Ausg. Erlangen 1801) s. 244, ff. Paulus 
Commentar iiber das neue Testament, Th.1. Schleiermacher on the writings of Luke, Th. 1. 
Berlin. 1817. S. 23, ff. [Translated by Thirlwall, Lond. 8vo, 1825.] 

2 So first the English Deists (see against them Prideaux’s Connection). From them Vol- 
taire borrowed this idea, as well as many others, (Philosophical Dictionary, under Essén- 
iens). Frederic the Great, Oeuvres ed. de Berlin, T. xi. p. 94. Staudlin Geschichte der 
Sittenlehre Jesu, Th. 1. 8S. 570, ff The same hypothesis has been enlarged in J. A. C. 
Richter das Christenthum und die altesten Religionen des Orients. Leipzig. 1819. Chris- 
tianity is supposed to be the public revelation of the Essene doctrines, and that these 
‘were connected with the ancient schools of the prophets, with Parsism, the Egyptian and 
Grecian mysteries, and through them with Brahmaism! According to Gfrorer, (das Heil- 
igthum u. die Wahrheit. Stuttgart. 1838, S. 382), Jesus was educated among the Essenes, 
and afterward followed his own course, but continued to hold what was sound in their 
doctrines and customs. On the other side see Bengel iiber d. Versuch Christenth. a. d. Essen- 
ismus abzuleiten, in Flatt’s Magazine, vii. 148, ff. Heubner in the 5th appendix to his edi- 
tion of Reinhard’s Versuch tiber d. Plan Jesu. V. Wegnern iiber das Verhaltniss des Christ- 
enthums zum Essenismus, in Illgen’s Zeitschrift fir die histor. Theol. 1841, ii. 1. 

3 Des-Cotes Schutzschrift far Jesam v. Nazereth. Frankf. 1797. 

* Versuch den Ursprung der Sittenlehre Jesu historisch zu erklaren (in Henke’s Maga: 
zin. Bd. 5.8. 426.) 

5 Bahrdt’s Briefe iber die Bibel im Volkstone. Berlin. 1784, ff. 

§ So in John vii. 15, all higher cultivation in any school is denied to Jesus 


? 
CHAP. I—LIFE OF JESUS. § 22. JOHN THE BAPTIST. 63 


given it a standard for estimating the condition of the Jewish 
nation at that period, and for judging of the means by which 
alone it could be elevated, very different from the usual view. 


§ 22. 


JOHN THE BAPTIST. 


. 


William Bell’s Inquiry into the divine mission of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. Lond. 
1761. 8vo. Translated into German by Henke, Braunschweig. 1779, 8vo. J. G. E. 
Leopold Johannes d. T., eine biblische Untersuchung. Hannover. 1825.8. Joh. d. T. in 
s. Leben u. Wirken dargestellt nach den Zeugnissen d. h. Schrift von L. v. Rohden. 
Libeck. 1838. 8. 


Before Jesus, appeared one of his relatives John, in the wil- 
derness of Judea, with the solemn call, «‘ Repent, for the king- 
dom of heaven is at hand,” and dedicating his followers to this 
altered state of mind by a symbolical washing of the body.’ It 
is certain that John and Jesus had been earlier acquainted with 
one another ;) but it is improbable that there existed a close con- 
nection between them, or the concerting of a common plan. The 
peculiarities of John point to an earlier connection with the Es- 
senes.” The same character was possessed by his disciples, who, 
after Jesus’ appearance, continued apart from the disciples of 
the latter (John iii. 26; Luke v. 33; Matth. ix. 14; xi. 2, 
ff.),* and of whom we meet with remains in Asia Minor, long 


1 Was the baptism of John an imitation of Jewish proselyte baptism? The question is 
answered in the affirmative by Buxtorf Lexic. talmud. p. 408. Lightfoot, Schoettgen, 
Wetstein ad Matth. iii. 6. J. A. Danz baptismus proselytorum Judaicus ad illustrandum 
baptismum Joannis, and his antiquitas baptismi initiationis Israelitarum vindicata (both 
contained in Meuschen N. T. ex talmude illustratum. Lips. 1736. 4, p. 233 u. 287, ss.). 
W. C. L. Ziegler iiber die Johannistaufe als unveranderte Anwendung der jiidischen 
Proselytentaufe (in his theol. Abhandlungen. Bd. 2. Gdttingen. 1804, S. 132, ff), E.G. 
Bengel iiber das Alter der jiid. Proselytentaufe. Tiibingen. 1814. 8. On the other hand, 
others deny that Jewish proselyte baptism existed so early. Among the moderns, Paulus 
Comment. Th. 1, 8.278. De Wette comment. de morte J.C. expiatoria. Berol. 1813. p. 42, 
ss. J. G. Reiche de baptismatis origine et necessitate necnon de formula baptismali. 
Goeting. 1816. 8. D.M. Schneckenburger tiber das Alter der jiidischen Proselytentaufe. 
Berlin. 1828.8. Washing, as a symbol of moral cleansing, is mentioned as early as in 
the writings of the prophets, Ezek, xxxvi. 25, Zech. xiii. 1. 

2 Even the place of his appearance év rH ép7ju Theo "lovdaiag (Matth. iii. 1), where, 
according to Plin. Nat. Hist. v. c. 17, the Essenes also dwelt. 

3 There is a remarkable-testimony concerning John in Jos. Ant. xviii. 5, 2 (first men- 
tioned by Orig. c. Cels. i. p. 35). Kreivet rotrov (‘lwdvvny) ‘Hpddnc, dyabov dvdpa, kar 
Tove "lovdaiouc Kkedetovta, apetiv érackodvtag, kal TH Mpd¢ GAAHAovE dixatoobvy Kai 
mpog Tov Aedv eboeBeia yowpévove, Bantioud ovviévat’ obta yap Kat THY Banriow 


64 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 1-117. 


after John himself had fallen a sacrifice’to his intrepidity (Acts 
xviii. 25, xix. 1, ff.).* 


§ 23. 


THE PUBLIC LIFE AND MINISTRY OF JESUS. 


Jesus also came out of Galilee to Jordan to be baptized by 
John, and was recognized in such a way by the’latter that he 
considered it more befitting to receive baptism from Jesus than 
the contrary. ‘The import of this is, that the Baptist looked 
upon the rite as a call to higher purity. This baptism was to 
Jesus the consecration to his Messianic activity. It is true that 
he began with the same call to his nation as John the Baptist 
(Matth. iv. 17); but he soon unfolded a far more comprehensive 
system in the discharge of his ministry, which, though it di- 
rectly affected the Jewish people only, yet in its very nature 
belonged to all humanity. The Jewish people at that time 


arodektyy avT@ daveicPar, uy exi tivwv duapTddwy Tapaitjoet Ypwpévwv, GAD’ é¢’ 
ayveia TOD cGuatoc, dre O7 Kal THE Wye SiKaLoovvy TpoEKKeKaBappévnc’ Kai TOV GAAwY 
ovotpegopévar, kat yap npOnoav éxi rAeictov TH dKkpodoet THY Adywr, Seicac ‘Hpddn¢e 
70 éxt tocdvde TiOavdyv abtod Toic dvOperoltg wy ext amooTdcet Tivi dépol, TavTa yap 
éOxecav oupBovag tH exeivov mpakovtec, TOAD KpeitTov Hyéitat, mpiv TL vedTepov & 
abrod yevéobat, xpoAaBov dvatpety, 7} metasoAje yevouévne cic TA Tpdyuata éuTEcav 
ketavociv. Kaid per, dropia 7H ‘Hpddov, décpioc cig Tov Maxaipoivra reuplelc—rairn 
krivvutat’ Toic 68 "lovdatotc 06a, Eri Tyswpia TH exeivov Tov dAEOpov éxt TG OTpaTedvuaTL 
yevéobat, Tod Geod Kaxdc ‘Hpddy BéAovroc. 

4 Cf. Recog. Clem. i. 54 and 60. In the middle of the 17th century, the existence of a 
sect was made. known by Carmelite missionaries, whose head-quarters were Basrah and 
Suster, calling themselves Nazoreans (not to be confounded with the Muhammedan sect 
Nasaireans), or Mendeans, but by the Muhammedans they were named Sabians (Sabaei, 
probably the name was borrowed from the star-worshipers of the Koran). They got the 
name Christians of St. John from the missionaries. Cf. Ignatii a Jesu narratio originis, 
ritaum et errorum Christianorum S. Johannis. Rom. 1652. Svo. After one of their holy 
books was published entire (Codex Nasireaeus, liber Adami appellatus, Syriace tran- 
scriptus latineque redditus a Matth. Norberg. 3 Thle. Lond. 1815, 1816. 4to) fragments of 
two others (the Divan and the book of John) communicated to the world, and many ac- 
counts furnished by travelers, Gesenius gave a critical survey of their system in the 
Universal Encyclopaedia of Ersch and Gruber (Leipzig. 1817), article Zabier, from which 
it appears that the system is Gnostic-ascetic, nearly related to that of the Valentinians 
and Ophites, John appearing as an incarnate aceon. The language of their sacred books 
is an Aramaean dialect, which occupies a middle position between the Syriac and Chaldee. 
They allege that they came from Jordan, from whence they were driven by the Muham- 
medans. Most scholars assume the descent of this sect from the disciples of John the 
Baptist. Les Nazoréens, thése de Theologie historique par L. E. Burckhardt. Stras 
bourg. 1840. 8vo. On the other side, see O. G. Tychsen in the Deutsches Museum, 1784, 
Th. 2. S. 414 (who, however, confounds the Nazoreans with another sect, Burckhardt, p. 11. 
107). Baumgarten-Crusius bibl. Theol. 8. 143. 


CHAP. I—LIFE OF JESUS. §23.PUBLIC MINISTRY. —g5 


presented an aspect the most deserving of compassion. In the 
deepest external degradation, always cherishing the most ex- 
travagant hopes in regard to the immediate future, they were 
led by their very religious views in the road to their destruc- 
tion. And yet this very religion, when judged, not by the par- 
tial, priestly form which it had then received, but as drawn 
from its original documents, and pervaded by the living pro- 
phetic spirit which animated it as there described, must have 
marvelously revealed itself to every human breast as directly 
certain, as the only true source of human happiness. It was 
the aim and object of Jesus to awaken, by his life and doctrine, 
this prophetic element of the Mosaic religion, but in a purer 
form and in greater development, among his countrymen; and 
to bring it into the hearts of men as a spontaneous principle of 
action. By such spiritual regeneration alone could the Jewish 
people be delivered even from external corruption; and we 
can not doubt that Jesus would gladly have effected this out- 
ward deliverance also. But his plan extended far wider, al- 
though the germs which lay in the compass of his ministry 
proceeded forth and became visible, for the most part, only after 
he had left our world. Jesus appeared first in Galilee, and re- 
sided not at Nazareth (Luke iv. 24), but usually at Caper- 
naum. From this place, however, he not only traversed Gali- 
lee, but often abode for a long time in Judea in his journeys to 
the festivals in Jerusalem. He was only in Samaria occasion- 
ally as he went through it; and we find him but once beyond 
the confines of Judea (Mark vii. 24, ff). By degrees he drew 
around him twelve young men, illiterate (Matth. xi. 25), and 
from the lower orders of society, for the purpose of initiating 
- them into his spirit and plan, by their living with him and con- 
tinually receiving his instructions. They accompanied him in 
his smaller journeys on which he appeared, sometimes among 
small domestic circles, sometimes in synagogues, sometimes 
among great multitudes under the canopy of heaven; and 
much as he attracted to himself universal attention by the ex- 
traordinary works he wrought, he excited no less astonishment 
and wonder by his doctrine, which directly convinced and car- 
ried captive the hearer (Matth. vii. 28, 29; Luke iv.32). At 
first he avoided observation (Matth. ix. 30); he even forbade 
his disciples to make him known as the Messiah (Matt. xvi. 
VOL. I—O. 


66 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 1-117. 


' 20); but afterward he declared himself to be the promised 
Messiah, with a firmness that forbids the idea of mere accom- 
modation (Matth, xxvi. 64). But the religious ideas of the 
Old Testament had obtained within him a new and higher 
life, reaching far beyond the local and temporal form handed 
down among the Jews by tradition.1 The Old Testament con- 
ception of a Theocracy was transformed in him into the high 
idea of the kingdom of God, in which men, animated by the 
Spirit of God, should be united with Deity and one another 
in moral unity. This kingdom of God he wished, as the Mes- 
siah, to establish on earth; on which account he required of his 
cotemporaries, sunk as they were in the external and the literal, 
first of all, change of heart, that they might be susceptible of 
the Spirit of God; next, faith in himself as the Christ, that 
by yielding itself up to the higher spirit, even the weaker mind 
might be elevated to free communion with God. It follows, of 
course, that nothing stood more in his way than that Pharisaic 
righteousness which rested on works. Hence he leveled his 
attacks chiefly against 7t. He did not indeed abolish the cere- 
monial law of Moses, constantly observing it himself; but he 
could not look upon it in any other light than as an expression 
of inward religious feeling; and all value attached to religious 
external observances, independently of true devotional feelings, 
was worthless in his eyes (Matth. xii. 1, ff.; xv. 1, ff.; v. 24; 
xii. 9). So far as he designated the free develagtasut of this 
internal religious feeling as the only genuine religious culture, it 
necessarily followed from his doctrine, and must have been 
sooner or later expressed publicly by his disciples, that no relig- 
ious law for men ean be in the form of a rule that requires 
something merely external. Thus the abolition of the cere- 
monial law necessarily followed his teachings. In like manner 
Jesus confined his immediate efforts to the Jews alone, and 
avoided coming in contact with those who were not Jews, out 
of regard to the very prejudices of his nation (Matth. x. 5; xv. 
21-28). But still there lay always in his doctrine, which re- 
jected all reliance on externalities, an adaptation for all man- 
kind, as he himself often intimated with sufficient distinctness 
(Matth. viii. 11, 21, 43). 


2 Chr. F. Bohme die Religion Jesu Christi aus ihren Urkunden dargestellt. Halle. 
1825. 2te Aufl. 1827. 8, 


CHAP. I—LIFE OF JESUS. $23. PUBLIC MINISTRY. 67 


While Jesus endeavored to guide his disciples to this purer 
religion and moral communion in the kingdom of God, he also 
drew them gradually away from the common notion of retribu- 
tion which prevailed among the Jews (Luke xiii. 2, ff.; John 
ix. 2, 3), announced to them the forgiveness of sins in the way 
. of repentance and faith, and then taught them, in this inward 
communion with God, to meet all external fortunes with sub- 
_ mission and confidence, and the firmest trust in God (Matth. 
vi. 33; x. 28). The kingdom of God, as it was then begun, 
was only an inward thing (Luke xvii. 21), in continual conflict 
with the world and with evil; but Jesus promised that he 
should appear again, to judge the evil, and to place piety and 
happiness in their natural relation, in the kingdom of God 
(Matth. xxiv. 30; xxv. 31), The notion of such a triumphant 
kingdom of God had been already set forth, though in a sen- 
suous form, in the description given of Messiah’s reign; and 
since it could be spoken of generally only in figures, Jesus bor- 
rowed his figures from it, giving at the same time sufficient 
intimation of a more spiritual, universal, and purer view 
(Matth. xxii. 30). . It could not be otherwise than that these 
figures should be more or less spiritually understood, according 
to the different degrees of religious culture: but the leading 
idea on which all depended, the idea of a future adjustment of 
the relation of happiness to piety in the kingdom of God tri- 
umphant, must have always been maintained. The disciples, 
accustomed to entertain the conception of an earthly Messianic 
kingdom, not only tock all those images in a sensuous accepta- 
tion, but also introduced into them many more definite points. 
Thus, although Jesus had declared the point of time when he 
should come again to be a secret with God the Father (Matth. 
xxiv. 36), yet they annexed to the admonition to be always 
ready (Matth. xxiv. 48, 44), the expectation of the near ap- 
proach of his coming (Matth. xvi. 27). These sensuous expec- 
tations could not at once be eradicated from their minds, with-_ 
out at the same time endangering their faith in Jesus; but they 
‘were gradually purified and spiritualized by a series of events, 
Probably the closing fortunes of Jesus’ life, though even they 
did not destroy those sensuous hopes, were required to convince 
the disciples that God’s ways are very different from man’s ex- 
pectations, and to confirm their faith in the Divine mission of 


68 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 1-117. 


Jesus; while at the same time they furnished the highest ex- 
ample of a mind renouncing the earthly, entirely devoted to 
God, and of a self-sacrificing love.’ 

The Pharisees cotemporary with Jesus, affected and exasper- 
ated by the truth of his doctrine, did not rest till they had 
brought him to the death he had long foreseen (Matth. ix. 15 ; 
xvi. 21, et seg.). Delivered up to them by a disciple, after he 
instituted, shortly before, a covenant-supper, as a symbol of in- 
ternal union with him, and of unity among his disciples them- 
selves, he was accused by them of insurrection before Pontius 
Pilate, and condemned by him through unworthy views. The 
eourage of the disciples, which had almost vanished away, re- 
turned after his resurreetion with so much strength and purity, 
that an unshaken attachment te Jesus was now to be expected 
from them, even amid outward renunciations and self-denial. It 
was still reserved, however, for later occurrences to correct many 
remaining prejudices. Thus it was some time before they fully 
understood the last commission of Jesus to carry the glad news 
of the beginning of God’s kingdom on earth to all nations, to 
invite all into it, and to initiate them into it by baptism. 


{ 
§ 24. 


ALLEGED COTEMPORARY NOTICES OF JESUS, NOT IN THE NEW 
TESTAMENT. 


The testimony concerning Christ in Josephus, Ant. xviii. 3, 
3, is regarded with the greatest probability as genuine, but in- 
terpolated.! On the contrary, the correspondence of Christ 


2 Chr. F. Boehme de spe Messiana apostolica. Halae, 1826. 8. 

1 Tiverat 68 Kata TovToy Tov ypdvov ’Inoovr, cogd¢e cvyp [elye Gvdpa abrov Aéyewv 
xpn qv yap), napadéSuv Epywv roinri¢ [diddoxa20¢ GvOpdarwy Tv cdv Hdovy TaAnOA 
dexouévar], kal TOAAOvE Mev THY lovdaiwy TOAAOds O2 Kal Grd Tod ‘EAAnviKod ExnydyeTo. 
['O Xpiord¢ obto¢g jv.) Kat abrov évdeigfer tév xpérov avdpdv map’ quiv cravpd 
émiterinnotog WiAdrov otk éferaboavto of td rpitov abrov dyangoavtec. [’Edavy 
yap abroic tpitny tyov huépay maALv Cv, TOv Ociwv rpodntey TabTa Te Kal GAAa prpia 
mept abrov Oaviidoua eipnkétwv.] Elcéti te viv tov Xpioriavév dnd Tove Ovopacpévwv 
obk érédire TO GbAov. This passage was first mentioned and cited by Eusebius (Hist. 
eccles. i. 11, demonstr. Evangel. iii. 5), and for a long time repeated by succeeding writers 
without any hesitation. The first who entertained doubts of its authenticity were Hubert 
Gifanius, ICtus (the letter in refutation of Sebastianus Lepusculus dd. Basileae the 24. 
Bebr. 1559. See in Melch. Goldasti centuria epistolarum philologicarum, Nro. 61); and 


CHAP. I—LIFE OF JESUS. §24. COTEMPORARY NOTICES. 69 


with Abgarus, toparch of Edessa,® and the apocryphal nar- 
ratives of the birth, youth, and last days of Jesus,’ are un- 


Lucas Osiander (in Epitome bist. eccles. Center. i. lib. 2, cap. 7. Tubing. 1592). More 
searching investigations of various scholars, respecting the matter from 1646-1661, first 
occasioned by the Altdorf Professor Sebastian Snellius, who denied the authenticity, are 
collected in: Epistolae xxx. philol. et. hist. de Fl. Jos. testim., quod. J. C. tribuit, rec. 
Christoph. Arnold. Noriberg. 1661. 12 (also in Havercamp’s edition of Josephus, tom. ii. 
Append. p. 233). Here the reasons against it are developed with superier skill, especially 
by Dav: Blonde] and Tanaquil Faber. Later defenders are: Carol. Daubuz pro testimonio 
Flavii Josephi de Jesu Christo, libb. ii. Londini. 1706. 8 (also in Havercamp’s Josephus, 
tom. il. Append. p. 187). Houteville erwiesene Wahrheit der christ]. Religion durch 
ihre Geschichte.--Frankf. 1745. 4. 8. 275, ff. Oberthir in der Vorrede zum 2ten Theile 
der Uebersetzung des Josephus v. Friese. Altona. 1805. C. G. Bretschneider TwapEepyov 
super Jos. de J. C. testimonio (hinter s. capit. theolog. Jud. dogm. e FI. Josephi scriptis: 
collect. Lips. 1812. 8. pag. 59). C. F. Bobmert iiber des Flav. Joseph. Zeugniss von 
Christo. Leipz. 1823.8 (comp. on the other side, the review in Winer’s and Engelhardt’s 
theolog. Journ. Bd. 2. S. 95, ff). F. H. Schoedel Flav. Josephus de J. Chr. testatus. 
Vindiciae Flavianae. Lips. 1840. 8. Opponents of the genuineness are: (Abbé de 
Longuerue) sur le passage de Joseph en faveur de Jésus-Christ (against Daubuz) in Cler- 
icus biblioth. encienne et moderne, t. vii. p. 237. God. Lessii disertt. ii. super Josephi 
de Christo testimonio. Goetting. 1781, 82. Eichstaedt Flavieni de J. C. testimonii 
ai@evtia quo jure nuper defensa sit, quaestt. vi. Jenae. 1813-41. Arguments for the 
genuineness: 1. The agreement of all MSS. from the time of Eusebius. 2. The number 
of Christians was too great to allow Josephus to pass over their origin without mention. 
3. Josephus mentions John the Baptist. Against the genuineness: 1. The silence of the 
fathers before Eusebius, while Josephus, in Orig. c. Cels. i. p. 35, is said to be éxiatépy 
TO 'Iycot ¢ XpiozG. 2. The passage interrupts the connection. 3. The contents betray 
a Christian. 4. The other.Jewish historian, Justus Tiberiensis, has not mentioned Christ. 
Photii bibl. cod. 33. The assumption of interpolations which found their way into all the 
MSS. of Josephus out of the far more extensively circulated church history of Eusebius, is 
the most probable, since Josephus was read and copied only by Christians. Chrysostom 
appears, however, not to have been acquainted with these interpolations, since he men- 
tions Josephus several times, and in hom. in Joann. 12, .quotes his testim. de Joanne, but 
is silent in regard to this passage. Remarkable is the silence of Photius in his accounts 
regarding Jos., Archaeol. (bibl. cod. 76 and 238),-especially as.he remarks respecting Justus, 
cod. 33, that he being a Jew, and encumbered with Jewish prejudices, does not mention 
Jesus and bis miracles. The following writers have decided in favor of an interpolation 
formed by altering single expressions: Knittel (nova biblioth. phil. et crit. vol. i: i. 118. 
~ Goetting. 1782..8), and Paulus (Heidelb. Jahrb., August 1820, S. 734). In favor of an inter- 
polation formed by inserted glosses are: Steph..le Moyen varia sacra, ii. 931, l’Abbé de 
Fontaines in the Journ. des Savans, ann. 1723, Juill., p. 10, Paulus Comm. tiber die 3 
ersten Evang. iii. 740, H. Olshausen hist. eccl. vet. monumenta praecipua, vol. 1. Berol. 
1820. 8. p. 3, Heinichen Excursus in his edition of Eusebius, tom. iii. p. 331. I have 
indicated above, by parenthetic marks, in what.light I look upon the interpolation. 
_ 2 Euseb. Hist. eccl. i. 13, and Moses Chorenensis (about 440), Hist. Armen. ii. 29-31, 
found these letters in the Archives of Edessa, and gave them to the public in a Greek and 
Armenian translation. At the time of Christ, Abgarus Uchomo: about 170, there was a 
Christian Abgarus. These letters, therefore, may have been forged long before Eusebius. 
Cf. Assemani bibl. Orient. t. i. p. 554. t. iii. p. 2. p. 8. Bayer historia Osrhoéna et 
Edessena. Petrop. 1734. 4. p. 104. Semler de Christi ad Abgarum epistola. Hal. 1768. 4. 
The genuineness of the letters is defended by W. F. Rinck, in Ilgen’s Zeitschrift f. 2. 
histor, Theol. 1843. ii. 3. 
* Two classes of apocryphal gospels may be distinguished: I. The older, which con- 
tained much the same cycle of narrations as the canonical; for example, the gospels of the 


70 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 1-117. 


questionably spurious. Still more modern are the pretend- 
ed authentic likenesses of Jesus;‘ and the epistle of Lentu- 


Hebrews and the Egyptians, &c. II. The later, whieh refer to the youth, the parents, 
and the last fortunes of Christ. A. Respecting the history of Christ’s youth, we find 
fabulous writings first of all among the Marcosians in the second century. (Irenaeus, i. c- 
17.) The orthodox, at the same time, received a doctrinal interest in maintaining the 
miraculous stories of Jesus’ youth in opposition to those Gnostics who asserted that 
the acon was first united with the man at the baptism of the latter. (Epbiphan. haer. li- 
c. 20.) Several of these traditions are found in the Koran (comp. Augusti christologiae 
Coranicae lineamenta. Jen. 1799). Gospels of the infancy still extant are the gospel of 
Thomas, an Arabic gospel of the infancy, and a Latin history of the nativity of Mary and 
the infancy of the Saviour. Ata later period the virgin Mary also begun to invite men to 
similar fabrications. Compounds of the two are exemplified in the Protevangelion of _ 
James, the Arabic history of Joseph the carpenter, and the Latin gospel of the nativity 
of Mary. B. Respecting the last days of Jesus, Justin Martyr, Apol. i.c. 35 and 42, refers. 
to the ra éxi Tlovriov WiAdrov yevoueva GkTa; in the same way he himself alludes, c. 34, 
and also Chrysostom, hom. 31. de natali Christi, to the acts regarding the census of Quirinus, 
not that he had seen them himself, but because he pre-supposes their existence in the 
Roman archives. Hence arose Christian traditions in relation to the contents of these 
acts, out of which Tertullian, Apolog. c. 5, 21, draws the fabulous. During the persecution 
of Maximin, the heathen, taking occasion from these traditions, produced wicked Acta 
Pilati (Euseb. H. E. ix. c.5), to which the Christians of that day had none others to oppose. 
The latter, however, soon made their appearance afterward (Epiphan. haer. 1. c. 1), and 
were fashioned and molded in various ways. One of these fabrication has received in 
later times the name, gospel of Nicodemus. Cf. Henke de Pilati actis probabilia. Helmst. 
1784 (opusc. academ. Lips. 1802. p. 199). W.L. Brunn de indole, aetate, et usu libri 
apocr. vulgo inscripti Evangel. Nicodemi. Berol. 1794.8. Editions are: J. A. Fabricii 
codex apocryphus N. T. partes iii. ed. 2. Hamb.1719. 8. J.C. Thilo codex apocryphus 
N. T. t. i. Lips. 1832 (containing the apocryphal gospels). [Jones on the canon of the 
New Testament. Lond. 3 vols. 8vo.] Die apokryph. Evangelien u. Apostelgeschichten, 
tibers. mit Einleit. und Anmerk.v. Dr. K.F.Borberg. Stuttgart. 1841. Cf. C.J. Nitzsch 
de apocryphorum Evangeliorum in explicandis canonicis usu et abusu. WViteb. 1808. 4. 
F. J. Arens de Evangell. apocr. in canonicis usu historico, critico, exegetico. Goetting. 
1835. 4. 

4 The first traces of likenesses of Christ are to be found among the Carpocratians 
(Iren. i. 25), and in the lararium of Severus Alexander (Lamprid. c. 29). The persecuted 
ehurch of the first centuries needed in Christ the pattern of a sufferer. Hence arose the 
general opinion that he was of unsightly form, according to Isaiah liii. 2,3. (So Tertullian 
de carne Christi 9, ady. Jud. c. 14, and often. Clem. Alex. Paedeg. iii. 1, Strom. ii. p. 308. 
Origenes contra Cels. vi. p. 327, dvce.dét 7 "Incod cOua.) At the same time all repre- 
sentations were forbidden, according to Exodus xx. 4. As soon as art began to represent 
Jesus, it must also have sought to express his excellence even in external form. Hence, 
from the fourth century onward, Jesus was supposed to have had a body of external 
beauty, something divinely majestic in his exterior, according to Psalm xly. 3. (Hieron. 
eomm. in Matt. ix. 9). -Yet they confessed still that there was no authentic likeness of 
Jesus to be seen. (Augustin de trjnitate, viii. 4. Nam et ipsias dominicae facies carnis 
innumerabilium eogitationum diversitate variatur et fingitur, quae tamen una erat, quae- 
cunque erat, and c. 5, qua fuerit ille facie, nos-penitus ignoramus). Eusebius (H. E. vii. c. 
18. Comp. the excursus in Heinichen’s edition, tom. iii. p. 396, ss.) relates concerning a 
statue at Paneas that it was there supposed to point to Jesus and the occurrence in 
Matt. ix.20. All later writers repeat the story after him, and John Malala (600 a.D.), in 
his Chronog. p. 305, gave the name of the woman Beronice. This monument was de- 
stroyed by Julian (Sozom. v. 21. Philostorg. vii. 3), or according to Asterius, bishop of 
Amasia (about 400, in Photii bibl. cod. 271 in fine), by Maximin at a time when copies of i& 


CHAP. I—LIFE OF JESUS. § 24. COTEMPORARY NOTICES. 71 


lus to the Roman senate, containing a description of his 
person. 


were hardly taken. Judging by the analogy of many coins, the memorial had been 
erected in honor of an emperor (probably Hadrian), and falsely interpreted by the 
Christians, perhaps on account of a cwrqps or GeG appearing in the inscription (cf. Th. 
Hassaei diss. ii, de monumento Paneadensi. Bremae. 1726. 4, and in ejusd. sylloge dis- 
sertt. ii. 314. Beausobre tber die Bildsaule zu Paneas in Cramer’s Sammlungen zur 
Kirchengesch. und theolog. Gelehrsamk. Th. 1. Leipzig. 1748). Later imagines Christi 
non manu factae (cf. J. Gretser syntagma de imagg. non manu factis. Ingolst. 1622, and 
appended to Georg. Codinus ed. J. Goar. p. 289. Is. Beausobre des images de main 
divine, in the Biblioth. Germanique, xviii. 10. Comp. also the controversial writings in 
the succeeding volumes of that work). 1. The @edrevxrog eixaov, iv avOpdrwv yxeipec 
ov« elpyéoavro (Evagrius Hist. ece:. iv. 27), sent to King Abgarus, and often mentioned in 
the image controversy, came from Edessa to Constantinople. Rome and Genoa now 
contend for the honor of its possession. A new miraculous copy of it on a brick was 
brought by order of the Emperor Nicephorus from Edessa to Constantinople, 968 a.p. 
Bayer hist. Osrhoéna et Edess. p. 112. Cf. Leo Diaconus (prim. ed. Hase, Paris. 1819), 
lib. iv. c. 10. 2. Sudarium St. Veronicae, still in the middle ages rightly named Veronica, 
ie.,veraicon. Cf. Gervassi Tilberiensis (about 1210) otia imperialia, c. 25 (Leibnit. scriptt. 
Brunsyv. t. i. p.. 968): De figura Domini, quae Veronica dicitur. Est ergo Veronica pictura 
Domini vera. Matth. Paris, ad ann. 1216: effigies vultus Domini, quae Veronica dicitur. 
Now in Jaen, Milan, and Rome. (Cf. Act. SS. add. 4. Febr. Lambertini de servorum 
Dei beatificatione, lib. iv. p. 2, c. 31). John VII. (705 .p.) is said to have erected a house 
of St. Maria in Beronica. 3. Sudarium Christi (first mentioned by Bede in lib. de locis 
sanctis) in Besancon, and the Sindon Christi in Turin. Pretended pictures of Christ made 
by his cotemporaries: 1. A picture of Christ, painted by Luke. Perhaps the first men- 
tion of it is by Theodorus Lector (about 518) apud Nicephorum Callistum (about 1333) Hist. 
eccles. ii. 43, who also mentions pictures of Mary and the principal Apostles, painted by 
Luke, Gregorius III., in epist. ad Leonem Imp., Simeon Metaphrastes (about 900) in vita 
S. Lucae. There is a picture of Christ, as a boy of thirteen years of age, by Luke, in the 
Sancta Sanctorum in the church of St. John Lateran at Rome. 2. An image of Christ, 
cut out of cedar-wood by Nicodemus, which was before at Berytus, as is pretended (ef. 
(Pseudo-) Athanasius de passione imaginis D.n. J. Chr. qualiter crucifixa est in Syria in 
urbe Beryto), appears first in the Acta Synod, Nicaenae, ii. (787) sess. iv., was brought to 
Constantinople by the emperor Nicephorus (Leo Diac. x. c. 5), and is now at Lucca (vultus 
Lucanus in Gervasius, c. 24, in Leibnitii script. Brunsv. t. i. p. 967). Cf. Joh. Reiskii 
exercitatt. hist. de imaginibus J. Chr. Janae. 1685. 4. Jablonski de origine imaginum 
Christi, in Opuscul. ed. te Water. t. iii. p. 377. (Lugd. Bat. 1809). IF. Minter Sinnbilder 
und Kunstvorstellungen der alten Christen (2 Hfte.. Altona. 1825. 4) ii, 3. Junker ub. 
Christusképfe, in Meusel’s Miscellaneen artist. Inhalts. xxv. 28. Ammon tber Christus- 
k6pfe in his Magazin fir christl. Prediger, i. ii. 315. 

5 (J. B. Carpzoy) de oris et corporis Jesu Christi forma Pseudolentuli, Joh. Damasceni 
et Nicephori prosopographiae. Helmstad. 1777. 4. In ai@evriav epistolae P. Lentuli ad 
Sen. Rom. de Jesu Chr. scriptae denuo inquirit J. Ph. Gabler. Jen. 1819. (Pfingstprogr.) 
[American Bibl. Repository, 1832.] 


72. FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I—aA.D. 1-117. 


SECOND CHAPTER. 


APOSTOLIC AGE TO THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. 


Sources: Acts of the Apostles,! and Epistles of the New Testament. Scattered notices 
in the fathers of the first period, collected by Eusebius.? 

Works: Lud. Capelli historia apostolica illustrata. Genev. 1634. 4. ed. Jo. A. Fabricius, 
Lips. 1691. 8. (William Cave’s History of the Apostles. . London. 1677). Ph. Jac. 
Hartmann comm. de rebus gestis Christianorum sub Apostolis. Berol. 1699. 4. J. Fr. 
Buddei ecclesia apostolica s. de statu ecclesiae christ. sub Apostolis. Jenae. 1729. 8. 
(G. Benson’s Planting of the Christian religion. London. 1756. 4to.) J. J. Hess Ge- 
schichte a. Schriften d. Apostel Jesu. 3 Bde. 4te Aufl. Zirich. 1820-22.8. F. Licke 
comm. de eccl. christ. apostolica. Goetting. 1813. 4. Planck’s Gesch. d. Christ. u.s.w. 
See § 20. A. Neander’s Gesch. d. Pflanzung u. Leitung der christl. Kirche durch die 

* Apostel. 2Bde. 3te Aufl. Hamburg. 1841. 

G. Ch. R. Matthai der Religionsglaube der Apostel nach s. Inhalte, Ursprunge u. Werthe. 
Bd. 1. Gdtt. 1826. Chr. Fr. Bohme die Religion der Apostel Jesu Christi aus ihren 
Urkunden dargestellt. Halle. 1829. 


§ 25. 


’  eagarats HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY TILL THE 
CONVERSION OF PAUL. 


The adherents of Jesus, more than 500 in number (1 Cor. 
xy. 6), and among them the twelve disciples, Simon (Cephas, 
Peter), and Andrew, sons of Jonas, James and John, sons of 
Zebedee (Boanerges, sons of thunder, Mark iii. 17),’ Philip, 


1 For an account of the numerous Acts of the Apostles which are found in antiquity 
especially among single heretical parties, see the list in Fabricii cod.-apocr. Noy. Test. 
tom. ii. p. 743, ss. Thus the Ebionites had the wepiodor Ilérpov dca KAjuevrog ypadeioat 
(Epiphan. haer. xxx. ec. 15, comp. below, § 59), and mpdfer¢ GAAat ’ArooTéAwyr (1. c. c. 
16). The Manichaeans, the Actus Apostolorum or raév ’ArooréAwy mepiodol, composed 
by one Leucius Charinus (Augustin. de fide contra Manich. c. 38, and often, Photii bibl. 
cod. 114), &c. One of the most modern and copious productions of this kind is the Abdiae 
(this Abdias, it is pretended, was a disciple of the Apostles, and first bishop of Babylon) 
historia certaminis apostolici (belonging to the eighth or ninth century), published in Latin 
in Fabricii cod. apocryph. New Test. t. ii. p. 388, ss. Respecting the apocryphal produc- 
tions of this kind, printed and unprinted, see Thilo acta Thomae in the Notitia, p. lii. ss. 

2 Later records are: Synopsis de vita et morte Prophetarum, Apostolorum, et Ixx. 
discipuloram Christi, spuriously ascribed to Dorotheus Tyrius, who lived about 303 (Latin 
in Bibl. PP. max. tom. iii., Greek fragments in Cave histor. literar. t. i. .p. 164, ss., and in 
the Chronicon paschale ed. du Fresne, p. 426, ss.). Hippolytus (not Portuensis, about 230, 
perhaps Thebanus, about 930) de xii. Apostolis, ubinam quisque eorum praedicaverit, et 
consummatus sit (in Combefisii auctario, t. ii. Paris. 1648). 

1 According to Wieseler (theol. Studien u. Krit. 1840, iii. 648), the sons of Zebedee were 
cousins of the Lord, their mother Salome the sister of Mary. 3 


CHAP. II—APOST. AGE TO A.D. 70. § 25. TO PAUL’S CONVERSION. 73 


Thomas (called Didymus, John xx. 24), Bartholomew (Natha- 
nael? John i. 46), Matthew (Matthew ix. 9; Levi, the son of 
Alphaeus, Mark ii. 14), James (the son of Alphaeus, Matthew 
x. 3, and of Mary, Matthew xxvii. 56, the wife of Cleopas, 
John xix. 25), Thaddeus (Lebbaeus surnamed Thaddeus, 
Matth. x. 3, Jude the brother of James, Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 
13), Simon Zelotes (the Canaanite, Matth. x. 4), and Matthias, 
who was chosen in place of Judas Iscariot, to whom were now 
added the brethren of Jesus who had become believers,’ spent 
the first days after Christ’s ascension in retirement in: Jerusa- 
lem, till the Divine Spirit, who had been in the prophets and in 
Jesus, began to manifest his living power in them in an extraor- 
dinary manner on the day of Pentecost. Furnished with power 
and courage, the apostles now appeared more publicly, and the 
number of Christ’s confessors increased every day. ‘The commu- 
nity, however, did not renounce Judaism and the Jewish law, but 
rather considered themselves to be the society of genuine Israel- 
ites (uaOnrai, ddeAgoi, muorevovtec, owhopevor, poBotpevor Tov Ody, 
called in derision by the Jews Nazarenes and Galileans) who, 
having been saved from that untoward generation (Acts ii. 40), 
were preparing themselves for the unfolding of the Messiah’s 
kingdom in its excellency. It must certainly be admitted, 
however, that sensuous expectations and erroneous opinions of 
the near approach of Christ’s return (Acts i. 6, iii, 19-21), 
were mixed up with their better principles.‘ The conditions of 
reception into this kingdom were repentance and faith in Christ, 
on which forgivenes of sin was promised in baptism, and the 
Holy Spirit imparted by the imposition of hands. Though they 
knew that the heathen also were admitted into the kingdom of 
God, still more that they should be invited, they yet believed 
that these Gentiles should first be incorporated among the Jew- 
ish people as proselytes of righteousness, and necessarily observe 


2 He is generally reckoned the same person with the ddeAgd¢ Tod Kupiov, Gal. i. 19. 
Comp. especially Pott prolegg. in epist. Jacobi (ed. iii. 1816), p. 58, ss. Schneckenburger 
annotatio ad. epist. Jac. (Stuttg. 1832), p. 144. On the other side see Dr. C. F. W. Clemen 
die Briider Jesu, in Winer’s Zeitschr. far wissenschaftl. Theol. iii. 329. Credner’s Einl. 
in d. N. T. i. ii. 571. Neander’s apost. Kirche, ii. 422, E.Th. Mayerhoff’s Einleit. in d. 
petrin. Schriften (Hamb. 1835), 8. 43, A. H. Blom de roi¢ ddeAgoic et taic ddeAgaic Tod 
kupiov. Lugd. Bat. 1839. 8.. Neudecker’s Einl. in d. N. T. 8. 656. Wieseler in the 
theol. Studien u. Krit. 1842, i.71. Comp. Winer’s bibl. RealwOrterbuch, i. 620. 

3 Act. i. 14, comp. John vii, 5. 
* Chr. Fr. Boehme de spe Messiann apostolica, Halae. 1826, 8, 


74 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I.—aA.D. 1-117. 


the entire Mosaic law. With this opinion they could not be in. 
haste to invite the heathen also to embrace Christianity. 4 
But although the community did not separate itself from the 
religion of the Jews, yet they were more closely connected. to- 
gether by the peculiar direction which their religious feelings 
naturally took, and by their peculiar hopes. Thus there arose 
by degrees a regularly constituted society among the brethren. 
For this the Jewish synagogue presented itself as the most nat- 
ural model.* At first, the apostles themselves performed the 
duties of the society, but by degrees special officers were appoint- 
ed. The apostles caused seven distributors of alms to be chosen 
(Acts vi. 1-6),° inasmuch as the brethren showed very great 
liberality toward their poor,’ and because the administration of 
these gifts threatened to be detrimental to the proper calling and 
ministry of the twelve. Soon after this, we find mpsoBirepor, 
elders (Acts xi. 30 = 0°3p1), chosen not so much for the purpose 
of teaching, as for the management of common concerns, and for 
maintaining the ordinances of the church. In all these appoint- 
ments of the society, the apostles did not act despotically, but 
allowed the church to determine them (Acts vi. 2; xv. 22, 23). 
The bold appearance of the apostles, and the enlargement of 
their party, soon excited attention.. The Sadducees were now 


5 The chief work is: Campeg. Vitringa de synagoga vetere, lib. iii. quibus tum de 
synagogis agitur, tum praecipue formam regiminis et ministerii earum in ecclesiam 
christ. translatam esse demonstratur. Franequerae. 1696, and Leucopetr. 1726. 4. 

§ Luke calls them simply the seven (oi émrd), Acts xxi. 8. In later times they have 
for the most part been regarded as the first deacons. So Cyprian, as early as his time; 
Epist. 65, ad Rogatianum. They are, however, distinguished from the deacons by Chry-. 
sostom, Hom. 14 in Acta § 3 (ed. Montfaucon. ix. 115), and the council of Trulla, canon 16. 
Vitringa de syn. vet. lib. iii. p. ii. cap. 5, compares them with the D°N3) of the 
synagogue ; and on the other hand, the d:axévor of Paul with the D°J3N. Boehmer, diss. 
jur. ecel. ant. diss. vii. p. 377, actually looked upon them as the first presbyters. See 
on the other side Mosheim de rebus Christ. ante Const. p. 122. Without doubt the 
deacons arose from the seven, by an enlargement of the circle of duties required. See 
Mosheim, |. c. p. 120. Neander’s apost. Kirche, i. 142. BR. Rothe’s Anfange d. christl. 
Kirche, i. 162. Another opinion of Vitringa (1. c.), supported by Mosheim (1. c. p. 118), is, 
that those seven were appointed for the Hellenist poor. But the Grecian names do not 
necessarily indicate Hellenists; comp. the names of the apostles Andrew and Philip. 
Perhaps three were Hebrew, three Hellenistic Jews, and one a proselyte. 

7 The opinion that the kingdom of Messiah would soon appear contributed, doubtless, 
very much to promote this liberality (comp. Matth. xxv. 34, ff.). It is not a community of 
goods that is taught in Acts il. 44, 45; iv. 33-35; but a voluntary equalizing of property, 
according to the precept laid down in Luke xii. 33. Cf. Mosheim de vera natura com- 
munionis bonorum in eecl. Hierosol. in his’ dissertatt. ad hist. eccles. pertinentium, ii. i, 
Ananias’s crime was a meanly calculating selfishness, assuming withal the appearance 
of enthusiastic brotherly love. 


CHAP. Il—APOST. AGE TO A.D. 70. §25. TO PAUL'S CONVERSION. 75 


the bitterest enemies of those who confessed the name of one 
risen from the dead (Acts iv. 2; v.17; xxiii. 6). On the other 
hand, priests (Acts vi. 7) and Pharisees (xv. 5) joined the 
Christians. After threatenings had been used with the apostles 
in vain (Acts iv.), the Sadducean party in the Sanhedrim wished 
to apply violent measures (v,. 17, ff.), but were restrained by the 
prudent counsel of the Pharisee Gamaliel (v. 34, ff., comp. xxiii. 
~ 6). Some Hellenists, however, provoked by the fe of Stephen, 
stirred up the popular fury, to which the Sanhedrim soon gave 
way. Stephen fell as the first martyr (vi. 8—vii. 60); but the 
very persecution that now set in was the first means of spread- 
ing Christianity still farther. The Christians, driven from 
- Jerusalem, preached the gospel in Judea, Samaria (viii. 1—4), 
even as far as Damascus (ix. 10, 19), Phoenicia, Cyprus, and 
Antioch, but yet only to the Jews (xi. 19). In the mean time 
they had cast off the Pharisaic prejudice against the Samaritans ; 
and in Samaria itself Philip gained many converts to Christian- 
ity. The same individual preached the gospel ii the towns on 
the sea-coast of Palestine, and finally took up his abode in Cae- 
sarea, probably as the founder of a church there (viii. 40, comp. 
xxi. 8). The apostles, who had hitherto remained always in 
Jerusalem, now sent Peter and John to Samaria, in order to 
carry on the work there begun (viii. 14, ff). Peter then went 
to the towns on the sea-coast, where he was commanded by 
Heaven to baptize a pious proselyte of the gate, the centurion 
Cornelius, in Caesarea (Acts x.). He quieted, indeed, the be- 
lievers in Jerusalem who were not pleased with this transaction 
(xi. 1-18); but the greatest part of them did not proceed far- 
ther than to allow that the heathen should be baptized before 
being circumcised. In this sense alone the church at Jerusalem 
approved of the conduct of some Hellenistic Jews in Antioch 
who had converted Gentiles also to Christianity (xi. 20, comp, 
ver. 22). They still maintained the view, that the Mosaic law 
was absolutely binding on all nations,’ which was held particu- 
larly by some believing Pharisees (xv. 5), regarding the uni- 
versal and strict observance of that law as an essential charac- 
teristic of the times of Messiah (according to Isaiah lii. 1, Ixvi. 
17, 20; Zech. viii. 21-238, xiv. 16, &c.). 


5 Above, § 47, note 8. My treatise respecting the Nazarenes and Ebionites in Steiidlin’s 
ua. Tzschirner’s Archiv. f. K. G. iv. 2, 308. 


76 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I1—AD..1-117. 


§ 26. 


PAUL. 


W. Paley’s Horae Paulinae. Translated into German, from the English, by Henke. 
Helmstadt. 1797. 8vo. J.T. Hemsen der Apostel Paulus, herausgeg. v. Licke. Gét- 
tingen. 1830. 8 K. Schrader der Apostel Paulus. 3 Thle. Leipzig. 1830. f£ 8 
(Chronology, history, creed.) Winer’s bibl. Realwdrterbuch, ii. 245. 

On the ehronology see J. Pearson annales Paulini (prefixed to his Opp. posthumis chronol. 

Lond. 1688. 4). Keil de detiniendo tempore itineris Pauli Hierosolymitani Gal. ii. 1, 2, 

commemorati. 1798 (also in Keilii opuscul. academ. ed. J. D. Goldhorn. i. 160). Vogel 

Versuch chronolog. Standpunkte in der Lebensgesch. Pauli (in Gabler's theol. Journ. 

i. ii. 243), Siskind Versuch chronol. Standpunkte fir die Apostelgesch. u. f. d. Leben 

Jesu (in Bengel’s Archiv. fur d. Theol. i. 156, ff. 297 ff). J. E. C. Schmidt Chronologie d. 

Apostelgeschichte (in Keil and Tzschirner's Analecten, iii. i. 128). On the other side, 

Keil tber die Zeit, in welcher der Brief an die Galater geschrieben ist (Analecten, iii. 

ii. 55, and in Latin in Keilii opusculis, i. 351). C. G. Kichler de anno quo Paulus Apost. 

ad sacra christ. eornversus est. Lips. 1828. 8. H. A. Schott’s Erérterung einiger 

wichtiger chronolog. Punkte in d. Lebensgesch. d. Ap. Paulus. Jena. 1832. 8 R. 

Anger de temporum in actis App. yatione. Lips. 1833. 8. J. F. Wurm iiber die 

Zeitbestimmungen im Leben d. Ap. Paulus, in the Tibingen Zeitschrift f. Theol. 1833, i. 3. 


In the mean time, however, that man had been previously 
converted to Christianity, to whom the mystery was to be an- 
nounced that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs of the prom- 
ises (Ephes. iii. 3-6). Saul, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, and a 
Roman citizen,’ but educated in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, a 
Pharisee, from being a dangerous enemy of Christianity sud- 
denly became a zealous adherent to it (37-40 a.p.). After a 
three years’ abode in Damascus and Arabia he came to Jerusa- 
lem, where Barnabas* introduced him to the apostles Peter and 
James (Gal. i. 17-19; Acts ix. 19-27). The very same per- 
son conducted him also to the great scene of his apostolic labors ; 
for, having been sent by the apostles to Antioch in order to es- 
tablish the infant church there, he recalled Paul from Tarsus, 
and took him as his assistant (Acts xi. 22-26). After this, 
when Herod Agrippa (41—44), for the purpose of ingratiating 
himself with the people, persecuted the church at Jerusalem, 
when James the elder was put to death, and Peter was saved 
from a like fate only by a miracle (Acts xii.), Jerusalem ceased 
to be the seeure seat of the apostles ;* and James, the brother 


1 On the rights of Roman citizenship, see Winer’s bibl. Realworterbuch, i. 235. 
2 Gu. H. Haverkorn van Rysewyk diss. de Barnaba. Arnhemiae. 1835. 8. 
§ With this agrees Apollonius {about 190), who (Euseb. H. E. v. 18) dc éx zapadécene 


CHAP. IL—APOSTOLIC AGE TO A.D. 70. $26. PAUL. 77 . 


of the Lord, and a Nazarite, appeared at the head of the church 
with a reputation equal to that of an apostle.* In the mean 
time, Barnabas and Saul at Antioch gathered from among Jews 
and Gentiles a church so numerous, even in wealthy members 
(xptorvavoi, Acts ii. 26),° that they were able to bring contribu- 
tions thence to the brethren at Jerusalem when a famine oc- 
ecurred (44 a.p., Acts xi. 27-30; xii. 25). After this, the two 
entered on the first large missionary journey through Cyprus, 
Pamphylia, Pisidia, Lycaonia, during which the gospel was 
preached to Jews and Gentiles. After they had again abode 
for a long time in Antioch, Hebrew Christians came thither 
who excited divisions in the church, by the assertion, that the 


Tov Gutipd donot tpooteTayévat Toi¢ abtotd dmoctéAac éxt dddexa erect uy yoprobjvat 
Fic ‘lepovcaAnu. So also the Kj#pvyua Tlérpov im Clem. Alex. Strom, vi: 762. Comp. 
Credner’s Beitrage zur Einl. in die bibl. Schriften, i. 353, 363. 

* Hegesippus in Euseb. H. B. ii. 23: Auadéxerat dia éxkAnsiav werd TOV drooTéAwY 8 
adéAgdce Tod «upiov “ldéxwGBoc, 6 dvouacteic bxd TavTeVv dixatog.—Odto¢ dz ex Kotdsac 
peTpoc abTod dytoc Hv. Oivov Kai cixepa ob Ercev, obd8 Empvxov Egaye’ Evpdv ext tHv 
Kedadgy abtod ote avéBn* Edatov obK HAeinbato, Kai Badaveiy odx éypjoato. TovTw 
hove b&jy eig ta Gyta eiotévar: obde yap épeodv éddper, GAAA oivddvac. Kal pdvog 
elonpyero tic Tov vadv, nipiokeTd Te KEipevocg emi Toig yévact, Kai aitotmevoc bmép Tod 
Aaod idecir, Oc dreckAnkévac Ta yovata adrod dikyny Kkaujdov, dia TO dei Kaurteww eri 
yovu Tpookuvodvra 7 Ge@, kai aiteiobar dgeoty TO Aad. Acad yé Tor Thy bmepBoagy 
Tig Oleacocévns avtod éxadseito dikatoc, Kai ’QBAiac, 6 éotw EAAQvioTL TEpLoyR Tov 
Aaod Kai dixaocivy, Sc of xpod@ra dndoior repi abtod. ('QBAia¢ 2p OY according 
to Reines. Var. lect. lib. iiii On the other hand, Fuller, Misc. sacr. lib. iii., "Q¢Aiau 
DYIIY after Ps. xxix. 11. Comp. Routh Reliq. sacr. i. 214. Heinichen ad bh. 1 
Kimmel de Rufino, p. 278.) Here the principles of the Essenes are mixed with the 
Nazarite, doubtless in the. traditional aecount of the later Ebionites, who fathered their 
asceticism upon James. Clement of Alexandria related, in the sixth book of his Hypoty- 
poses (Huseb. ii. 1), Thérpov kal ‘léxwBov cai "loéyvyv peta THY Gvéanbiv Tod cwThpoc, 
&¢ dv kal bx6 Tov Kupiov mporeTiunuévove, pH eredinalecbar ddsqc, GAN *laxwBov Tov 
dikatov éxicxorov ‘lepocodtpwrv éAéoOar. The three apostles selecting are also those 
named in Matth. xvii. 1, 26, 37: consequently the James specified is the som of Zebedee. 
It has been disputed whether the person chosen, the same who appears at the head of 
the church in Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17; xv. 13; xxi. 18; Gal. i. 19; ii. 9), was the son of 
Alphaeus, or the brother of our Lord, or both (comp. § 25, note 2). Hegesippus manifestly 
points out the brother of the Lord, different from the apostle. So also the Apost. Constit. 
ii. 55; vi. 12. In vi. 14, they give a list of the twelve apostles, and then put in ‘equal rank 
with them: ‘Iéxw@d¢ te 6 Tod Kupiov ddeAdde Kal ‘IepocoAtpwv éxicxoroc, kai TadAoc 6 
tév éUvar didéoKxadoc; a testimony which deserves consideration as belonging to the 
third century and to Syria. It need not appear remarkable that James the son of Alphaeus, 
as well as most of the apostles, should disappear from the record of the New Testament, 
and that Luke and Paul did not consider if necessary to separate from him and to charac- 
terize particularly the James who is conspicuous in all Christendom. 

5 This was probably at first a name of derision in the mouth of the inhabitants of 
Antioch, who were famous for their wit (Lucian. de Saltat. c..76: of yap ’Avttoyeic 
evoveotétn méAic. Julianus Misopog. p. 314. Ammian. Marcell. xxii. 14. we iv. 
p- 258. Procop. Pers. ii. 8). 


. 8 FIRST PERIOD—DIV. I.—A.D. 1-117. 


newly converted Gentile Christians must also necessarily become 
Jewish proselytes of righteousness. Hence Paul and Barnabas 
were sent to Jerusalem, where they received from the collective 
apostles, and the assembled church, a decision to the effect that 
the Gentiles should only be required to accede to proselytism of 
the gate (Acts xv.).° They were also, at the same time, recog- 
nized as apostles of the Gentiles by Peter, James, and Johnp 
who resolved to continue their labors among the Jews (Gal. ii. 
9, a.v. 52). Seon after, Barnabas and Mark made a second 
journey to Cyprus, while Paul and Silas repaired to the 
churches of Asia Minor. In Lystra, Paul took Timothy with 
him, traveled through Phrygia and Galatia, passed over into 
Macedonia, where churches were founded at Philippi, Thes- 
salonica, and Beroea, and came by Athens to Corinth (Epistles 
to the Thessalonians).’ After remaining there a year and a 
half, he returned by Ephesus, Caesarea, and Jerusalem, to An- 


6 The injunctions in Acts xv. 29 are the so-called precepts of Noah. See above § 17, 
note 7. So Origen in comment. ad epist. ad Rom. lib. ii. (ad Rom. ii. 26, ed Lommatzsch, 
p. 128): Vides ergo (out of Levit. xvii. 10-12), hanc de observatione sanguinis legem, 
quae communiter et filiis Israel et advenis data est, observari etiam a nobis, qui ex genti- 
bus per Jesum Christum credimus Deo. Nos enim proselytos et advenas Scriptura 
nominare consuevit : cum dicit (Deut. xxviii. 43): Advena qui est in te, ascendet super 
te sursum; tu autem descendes deorsum. [Ipse erit tibi caput, tu autem eris ejus cauda. 
Ideo ergo legem de observatione sanguinis communem cum filiis Israel etiam gentium 
suscepit ecclesia. Haec namquc ita intelligens in lege scripta, tanc beatum illud Aposto- 
loram Concilium decernebat, dogmata et decreta gentibus scribens, ut abstinerent se non 
solum ab his, quae idolis immolantur, et a fornicatione, sed et a sanguine et a suffocato. 
Tertull. de Monogam.c. 5: In Christo omnia revocantur ad initium—et libertas ciboram 
et sanguinis solius abstinentia, sicut ab initio fuit. Initium tibi et in Adam censetur, et 
in Noe recensetur. Constitt. apost. vi. 12, says of those prohibitions: dep xal roi¢ 
mda vevopoléteto Toic pd Tov vouov GvotKoi¢ ’Eva@c, *Evay, NGe x. t. 2. My treatise 
respecting the Nazarenes and Ebionites in Staudlin’s u. Tzschirner’s Archiv. f. K. G. iv. 
ii. 309. This explanation is also given by W. Schickard de jure regio Ebraeorum 
(Argentor. 1625), cap. 5, p. 129. Hammond and Alex. Morus ad Act. xv. 20. Sandius in 
nucleo hist. eccl. p. 54. It is otherwise explained by Spencer de legibus Hebr. ritualibus 
ed. Pfaff. p. 595, ss. Nitzsch de sensu decreti apostolici. Act. xv. 29, Viteb. 1795 (also 
in Commentatt. theol. ed. a Velthusen, Ruperti et Kuinoel, vi. 403). Ndosselt diss. de 
vera yi et ratione decreti Hierosolymitani Act. xv. (in ejusd. exercitt. ad. sacr. script. 
interpret. p. 95.) When many writers assume that the abstaining from flesh offered in 
sacrifice to idols, from blood, and things strangled, was enjoined on the Gentile Christians, 
because the Jews held those things in greatest abhorrence, it should be remarked that 
this greater abhorrence of them had its foundation in the circumstance of those things 
being forbidden of God, according to the Jewish opinion, not merely to the Jews, but to 
all men. 

7 The conduct of Gallio, the brother of Seneca, toward Paul, Acts xviii. 12, and Phil. 
iv. 22, gave rise to the subsequent fabrication of a correspondence between Seneca and 
Paul. Hieron. Catal.c. 12, Fabric. cod. apocr. N. T. t. ii. p. 880, ss. Cf. Gelpke tract. 
de familiaritate, quae Paulo Apost. cum Seneca philosopho intercessisse traditur, verisi- 
millima. Lips. 1813._ 


CHAP. I.—APOSTOLIC AGE TO A.D. 70. § 26. PAUL. 79 


tioch (Acts xv. 86—xviii. 22). But he soon entered on the thira 
great journey to Asia Minor, where he passed at Ephesus the 
first two years and three months. Here, and in the vicinity, he 
established Christianity more firmly (Epistle to the Galatians ? 
First Epistle to the Corinthians), and then travéled through 
Macedonia (Second Epistle to the Corinthians) to Corinth 
(Epistle to the Romans). After a three months’ abode in this 
city, he returned to Jerusalem by Miletus (Acts xviii. 23, xxi. 
17). Here, having been taken in the temple (58 a.p.), he was 
brought to Caesarea, and thence to Rome (60-61 a.p., Epistles 
to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon). 
The Acts of the Apostles closes with the second year of the 
Roman captivity (63 .p.) ; but according to later, though an- 
cient testimonies, he was again liberated from this bondage, 
made several other journeys (First Epistle to Timothy,’ Epistle 
to Titus), and then fell into a second captivity at Rome (Second 
Epistle to Timothy), which terminated in his death (67 a.p.).° 
Among Paul’s disciples the most distinguished were Silas, or 
Silvanus (Acts xy. 40, ss., as far as xviii. 5; 2 Cor. i. 19), 
who was afterward with Peter (1 Peter v. 12); Timothy, who, 
commissioned by Paul, abode for a long time at Ephesus, in 


8 So according to Ussher, Mill, Pearson, Ie Clerc, and Paley: Heydenreich die Pastoral- 
briefe Pauli, Bd. 1. (Hadamar. 1826). 8. 36, ff G. Bohl iber die Zeit der Abfassung 
u. d. Paulin. Charakter der Briefe an Timoth. u. Titus. Berlin. 1829. 8. 204, ff If the 
pastoral letters had been a forgery of the second century, as Baur thinks (die Sogen. 
Pastoralbriefe d. Ap. Paulus. Stutt. and Tib. 1835), it would be an inexplicable thing that 
the writer should lay at the basis of the history certain situations in which the apostle was 
placed, which can not be pointed out in the New Testament. 

9 So Eusebius, H. E. ii. c. 22, supported by Clemens Rom. Ep.i.§ 5: Acad GyAov 6 
TlatAog trouovig BpaBeiov drecyev.—Kypvé yevouevoc tv te TH dvaToAy Kai év TH 
dicet, TO yevvaiov Tie miotewe abtod KAéoc EAaBev. Arkaiocbvynv didakac bAov Tov 
Kdguov, kat éxi TO Tépua THC Oboews EAGOV, Kai wapTupHoag Eri THY HyoVUEVWY, ObTaS 
arnAniyn Tot Kéopov, Kal eic Tov Gytov Térov éropeb0n. Even the fragmentum de 
canone in Maratorii antiquitt. ital. medii aevi, iii, 854, which belongs to the third century, 
mentions the departure of Paul setting out from the city for Spain. A single captivity of 
Paul in Rome, ending with his death, is assumed by Petavius, Lardner, J. E. C. Schmidt, 
Eichhorn, E. F. BR. Wolf (de altera Pauli Ap. captivitate, diss. ii. Lips. 1819. 20. 8.), 
Schrader (Paulus, i. 227), Hemsen, Baur, Reuss (Gesch. d. Schriften d. N. T. § 54), Mat- 
thia (Pastoralbr. S. 185, 593), de Wette (Hinl. in d. N. T. § 122), Schenkel (theol. Studien 
u. Krit. 1841, i. 53). On the contrary, the older view is defended by P. E. Jablonski diss. 
de ultimis Pauli Ap. laboribus a Luca praetermissis (Opusc. ed. J. G. te Water, iii. 289), 
J.P. Mynster de ultimis annis muneris apostolici a Paulo gesti (kleine theol. Schriften. 
Kopenhagen. 1825. 8. 189), Heydenreich (Pastoralbriefe, ii. 6), Bohl (a. a. O. 8. 81), Wurm 
(Tubing. Zeitschr. f. Theol. 1833, i. 81), Schott (Erérterung einiger chronol. Punkte in d. 
Lebensgesch. d. Ap. Paulus. S. 116), Neander (apost. Kirche; i. 389), Credner (Hinl. in d. 
N. T. i. 1. 317), Neudecker (Hinl. in d. N. T. S. 397). 


80 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D. 1-117. 


order to arrange the affairs of the church at that place; Titus, 
who had been left for the same purpose in Crete (both considered 
in later times as the first bishops of these churches, Ewseb iii. 
4); and Luke. 


§ 27. 


HISTORY OF THE OTHER APOSTLES AND THEIR DISCIPLES. 


J. A. Fabricii salutaris lux evangelii toti orbi exoriens (Hamburg. 1731, 4to), page 95, ss. 


The history of the other apostles, and their early pupils, is 
‘involved in great obscurity, and has frequently been much dis- 
figured by mistakes and fabrications. Among these distortions 
may be reckoned principally, the traditions respecting the apos- 
tles determining by lots to what countries they should go from 
Jerusalem,’ the joint composition of the apostles’ creed,’ and 
their unmarried state,* as well as the tradition that they all 
suffered martyrdom except John.‘ . And when the apostles, who 


1 First advanced by Rufinus in Hist. Eccl. i. 9. Cf. Act. SS. ad d. 15, Jul. Thilo acta 
Thomae, p. 87, ss. 

2 First advanced by Rufinus in Exposit. symboli apostolici. A homily de symbolo, 
falsely ascribed to Augustine, gives a still more particular account. Cf. Fabricii cod. 
apocr. N. T. vol. iii. p. 339, ss. The story is defended by Natalis Alex. Hist. Eccl. saec. i. 
diss. xii.; Acta SS. ad. d. 15, Jul. u. J.-Chrys. Trombellius tract. de sacramentis. Bonon. 
1770. t. ii. diss. 4, qu. 3. On the contrary, Du Pin and Tillemont, with ali Protestant 
theologians, acknowledge the fiction. 

3 Comp. against this 1 Cor. ix. 5. Hence also Ignatius ad Philadelph. c. 4. mentions 
[lérpov kai Tlatiov—kai Tév GAdwv drooréAuy toi¢ ydpore TpocoulAncavray. Clem. 
Alex. Strom. iii. p. 448: [létpo¢ nai bidimroc éxaidomoigcavto* Kal IladAog otk dxvet 
év rive ExtotoAq THY abrov mpocayoptiew ovlvyor, Hy ov repiexduilev Oa TO THe brEp- 
eciac evoradéc. See J. A. Theiner and A. Theiner die Einfihrung der erzwungenen 
Ehelosigkeit bei den christl. Geistlichen und ihre Folgen (Altenburg. 1828. 2 Bde. 8). 
Bd. 1.8. 26. On the other hand, the Montanist Tertullianas de Monogam. c. 8: Petrum 
solum invenio maritam; caeteros cum maritos non invenio, aut spadones intelligam 
necesse est aut continentes. Nec enim—Paulum sic interpretabimur, quasi demonstret 
uxores apostolos habuisse. In later times, 1 Cor. ix. 5, was explained of female friends 
who served: Ambrosiaster ad h. 1. Hieronymus ad Matth. xxvii. 55. Theodoret. ad 
1 Cor. ix. 5, who adds, however, tivé¢ obtwc 7Hpunvevocay. (Cf. Suiceri thesaur. ecclesias- 
ticus, ed: ii. Amstel. 1728. T. i. p. 810, s. v. yuv7.) - Even when it was conceded, as by 
Ambrosiaster ad 2 Cor. xi. 2: Omnes apostoli, exceptis Johanne et Paulo, uxores habue- 
runt: the view was usually held, Hieron. Epist.30 (al. 50) ad Pammachium (ed. Martianay, 
t. iv. p. ii. p. 242): Apostoli vel virgines, vel post nuptias continentes. On the whole sub- 
ject, see G. Calixtus de conjugio Clericorum (ed. ii. ed. H. Ph. C. Henke. Helmst. 1783). 
P. ii. p. 147, ss. 

* Heracleon (ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. p. 502) says that Matthew, Philip, Thomas, and 
Levi (Thaddeus 7), did not suffer martyrdom. 


CHAP. IL—APOST. AGE TO A.D. 70. §27. THE APOSTLES. 81 


continued a long time in single churches, were considered: as 
the first bishops of them, this is also liable to be misunder- 
stood. Peter was still found in Jerusalem in the year 52 (Acts 
xv.), then in Antioch (Gal. ii. 11), also in Babylon (1 Peter v. 
13), and, according to other ancient testimonies, he suffered 
martyrdom.in Rome (67 a.p.)° Since the end of the 4th cen- 
tury, the fabrication of the Clementines, that Peter was first 
bishop of Antioch, and then of Rome, obtained more general 


5 Clemens, Rom. Epist.i.c. 5, testifies merely to his martyrdom; Ignatius, Ep.ad Rom. 
cap. 4, alludes to it. The Praedicatio Petri (which was known even to Heracleon, and 
consequently belongs to the beginning of the second century; see the Clementines by 
A. Schliemann. Hamb. 1844, P. 253), comp. Lib. de non iterando bapt. appended to 
Cypriani opp. ed. Rigalt. p. 139: Liber, qui inscribitur Pauli praedicatio, in quo libro— 
invenies, post tanta tempora Petrum et Paulam, post conlationem evangelii in Hierusalem 
et mutuam altercationem et reram agendarum dispositionem, postremo in urbe, quasi 
tune primum, invicem sibi esse cognitos. (The Praedicatio Pauli seems to have formed 
the last part of the Praed. Petri. Credner’s Beitrage zur Einleit. in die bibl. Schriften, i. 
360.) Dionysius Corinth. (about 170) Ep. ad Romanos (in Euseb. ii. 25): "“Audw (Ilétpoc 
kat ILadAoc) nai ele rv Huetépay KépivOov gvtetaavtec jude, duoiwe édidakav~ bu0twe 
08 Kai ele tiv “Iradiav bséce diddsavtec, guaptipyoav Kata Tov abtov Kaipbv. — Ire- 
naeus adv. Haer. (written 176 or 177) ili. 1:. ‘O pév 67 MarOaiog év toi¢ ‘EBpaiot ti 
iWia diaréxty abrov Kai ypagyy éfqveyxer ebayyediov, rod Térpov Kat tod TMavdov 
éy ‘Popn ebayyeAcouévov, kal Oeyedioivtav tHv éxxAnoiav. Meta d2 THY TObTwY 
&od0v Mdpkocg x. t. A. Tertullianus de Praescr. haereticorum, c. 36: Felix ecclesia 
(Romana), cui totam doctrinam apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt; ubi Petrus pas- 
sioni dominicae adaequatur, ubi Paulus Johannis (baptistae) exitu coronatur. Cajus 
Romanus (about 200) in Euseb. ii. 25: ’Ey@ d& ra tpdrata Tév ’AmooTéAwy yw detfar” 
éav yep Ocdgone GredOciv éni tov Barikavov, f éxt tiv bddv THY ’OoTiar, sbiphoet 
Ta TpbTaca TGV TadbTHY idpvoapévav THY ExkAnciay. In the middle ages the Waldenses 
denied (Moneta adv. Catharos et Waldenses. Romae. 1743, fol. p. 411) Marsilius Pata- 
vinus, Michael Caesenas, &c. (cf. Spanheim de ficta profectione Petri Ap. in urbem 
Romam, Opp. ii. 337) that Peter had ever been at Rome. In this they were followed by 
Matth. Flacius, Claud. Salmasius, and Fred. Spanheim (1. c.), all obviously entangled by 
party feeling. Several moderns, resting on a scientific basis, have made the same asser- 
tion, particularly Eichhorn (Hinl. in d. N. T. i. 554), Baur (Tiibinger theol. Zeitschr. 1831. 
iv. 136. 1836. iii. 163) and Mayerhoff (Hinl. in die Petrin. Schriften, Hamburg. 1835. 8. 73). 
Neander (apost. Kirche, ii. 458) and Winer (bibl. Realw6rterbuch, ii. 281) waver. On the 
contrary, the old tradition is defended by Credner (Einleit. in d. N. T. i. ii. 628. ‘Hall. 
A. L. Z. 1836, July, S. 370), Bleek (theol. Studien und Krit. 1836 iv. 1061) and Ols- 
hausen (Hinleit. zum Romerbriefe, and theol. Stud. und Kritik. 1838, iv. 916). There is a 
new rejoinder by Baur (iiber den Ursprung des Episcopates, s. 43). A violent catholic 
defense is presented in Frid. Windischmanni vindiciae Petrinae: Ratisb. 1836. If, 
according to Baur, this tradition proceeded from Judaizing Christians at Rome for the 
purpose of exalting Peter above Paul, we can not understand how the fabrication did not 
forthwith meet with a decided contradiction from the adherents of Paul at Rome, nor how 
Caius, a disciple of Paul, is a leading witness for its truth. Comp. Drey, Herbst, and 
' Hirscher theol. Quartalschrift. Tiibingen 1820, iv. 567. Mynster’s Kleine theol. Schriften. 
Kopenhag. 1825, s. 141. On the manner of Peter’s death Tertullian speaks (1. c.): 
Petrus passioni dominicae adaequatur. On the other hand, Origen (in Euseb. H. E. iii. 
c. 1): Wérpoc—dveckodonicby cata Kxedaane, obtw¢ didcag naeiv, according to 
Rufinus’ version: crucifixus est deorsum capite demerso, quod ipse ita fieri deprecatus 
est, ne exaequari domino’videretur. 


VoL. 1.—6. 


* : 
¥ . 
* .-s 
: 


- 


82 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I-——A.D. 1-117. 


currency.’ Philip spent the last years of his life in Hierapolis 
in Phrygia (Polycrates, about 190, ap. Eused. H. E. iii. 31, and 
v. 24). John also went to Asia Minor, and a great part of his 
life belongs to the following period. The traditions are ancient 
respecting Thomas preaching the gospel in Parthia,’ Andrew in 
Scythia (Origines ap. Euseb. iii. 1), Bartholomew in India’ 
(Euseb. v. 10), and it is reported that John Mark, first the 
companion of Paul and Barnabas, then of Peter, was the founder 
of the church in Alexandria (Ewseb. ii. 16). The later tradi- 
tions respecting the apostles, and apostolic men, which have been 
partly indebted for their origin to the wish of many nations to 
trace their Christianity up to the apostolic age, are, to say the 
least, uncertain, and in part so marvelously forged, that they 
sufficiently betray their own falseness.? 


6 Die Clementinen von A. Schliemann. Hamburg. 1844.8.115. Eusebius, iii. 2, says: 
Mera tiv TlatAov kai Tlétpov paprupiav mp@ro¢g KAnpodtar tiv érickomyy Aivoc, and 
according to bim, iii. 4, Clement is t#¢ ‘Payaiwy éxxAnoiag tpitoc éxicxorocg KaTaoTds 
(Linus, Anacletus, Clemens). Rufini praef. in recognitiones Clementis: Linus et Cletus 
fuerunt quidem ante Clementem episcopi in urbe Roma, sed superstite Petro, videlicet ut 
illi episcopatus curam gererent, ipse vero apostolatus impleret officium. Epiphanius also 
has the correct opinion respecting the episcopate of the apostles, Haer. xxvii. 6: Ey "Pépy 
yap yeyévace mpOtot Tlétpoc nai MatdAoce of dréoroAo abroi Kati éricxoror.—Peter 
is named the first bishop of Antioch, first of all by Chrysostom. Hom. xlii. in Ignat, Mart. 
Hieronymus Catal. c. 1, and Comm. in ep. ad Gal. c. 1, the first bishop of Rome by 
Optatus Milev. de schism. Donatist. ii.2. Hieron. Catal. c. 1.. Augustin. Ep. liii. ad 
Generosum and contra lit. Petilian. iii. Jerome was the first that knew that he had been 

twenty-five years bishop of Rome. The tradition of the modern Roman church is “most 
fully developed in Gregor. Cortesii de Romano itinere gestisque principis Apostoloram 
libri ii. Vinc. Al. Constantius recensuit, notis illustravit, annales SS. Petri et Pauli et 
appendicem monumentorum adjecit. Rom. 1770. 8. 

7 Later accounts make Thomas go to India. So first Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. xxv. ad 
Arian. p. 438, ed. Paris. Ambrosius in Psalm xlv.10, Hieronym. Epist. 148, and so the 
Syrian Christians in India (Thomas-Christians) consider him to be the founder of their 
Lips. 1823, p. 97, 121. These Manichaean Acta Thomae render it probable that the tradi- 
tion is of Manichaean origin. On this account Theodoret Haer. fab. i. c. 26, declares that 
the Thomas sent to the Indians was a disciple of Manes. : 

8 Probably Yemen. Rufinus H. E.x.9: Thomae Parthia, et Matthaeo Acthiopia, eique 
adhaerens exterior India Bartholomaeo dicitur sorte decreta. Inter quam Parthiamque 
Media, sed longo interior tractu India ulterior jacet. So also Philostorgius H. BH. ii. 6, calls 
the Sabaeans, or Homerites, rove évdordrw * Ivdove. 

® Thus the Spaniards pretend that James the elder was seen in their country (bis body 
is said to be in Compostella since A.D. 816); the French claim Dionysius the Areopagite, 
Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, and others; the English, Simon Zelotes, and especially Joseph 
of Arimathea; the Germans, Maternus, Eucherius, and Valerius, as legates of Peter; the 
Russians, Andrew, &c. The real but later founders of churches have been frequently 
transferred to the times of the apostles by tradition. 


> 
<3” 


‘CHAP. IL—APOST. AGE TO A.D. 70. § 28. JEWS AND GENTILES. 83 


§ 28. 


RECEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY AMONG JEWS AND GENTILES. 
(Comp. § 19.) ; 


Neander’s Kirchengesch., 2te. Auflage i. i. 117, ff. 


With the Jews, their earthly expectations of the Messiah al- 
ways presented a special obstacle to Christianity. When the 
Christians not only took into their society the Samaritans, but 
when Paul admitted the very heathen into it, without requiring 
of them circumcision, the fact appeared.to the Jews to afford 
sufficient proof that the confessors of Christ could not be follow- 
ers of a true Messiah; and Christianity now appeared to them 
only a form of Judaism profaned by a mutilated impartation of 
it to the heathen, as is expressed even in the appellation of the 
Christians, 0°35, which originated, perhaps, somewhat later. 
On this account Paul and his disciples were most violently hated 
by the Palestinian Jews (Gal. v. 11, Rom. xv. 31), who could 
even spread the report concerning him, that he had introduced 
heathen into the temple, the uproar arising from which caused 
his imprisonment (Acts xxi. 27, ff). Among the Hellenistic 
Jews Paul found once and again much susceptibility of mind in 
relation to Christianity, as in Berea (Acts xvii. 11, 12), Ephe- 
sus (xviil. 19, 20), and Rome (xxviii. 17). In other places 
these very Jews were his most dangerous enemies, as in Thes- 
salonica (xvii. 5, ff.), and Corinth (xviii. 12, ff.), partly from 
the usual national prejudice, and partly, also, perhaps, from 
fear lest the publication of their Messianic hopes might injure 
them in the eyes of the Romans (Acts xvii. 6-8). 

_ In addition to the inward power of Christian truth on the 
human spirit, the miraculous origin of Christianity and the pre- 
vailing inclination to foreign superstitions, influenced the heathen 
in its favor. On the contrary, with the higher classes, and es- ' 
pecially the philosophers (1 Cor. i. 18, ff.), its Jewish origin, 
the simple form in which it appeared (Acts xvii. 18, ff.), and 
the doctrine of the resurrection of the body (l. c. 32) hindered 
its reception. Christianity was looked upon at this time by the 


84 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 1-117. 


heathen only as a Jewish sect,’ an opinion which from many 
indeed may have drawn upon it contempt, but which secured 
for it, notwithstanding, the protection of the civil government 
(Acts xviii. 12, ff.); for now, the Christian societies, like the 
Jewish, passed for Sodalitia licita (comp. § 12). The circum- 
stance that even some heathens were drawn away from their 
own religion by means of these communities, served, indeed, to 
raise complaints against them (Acts xvi. 20, ff; xvii. 18); 
these, however, were generally overlooked by the Roman mag- 
istrates, just as the circumstance of many heathens becoming 


proselytes of the gate had been formerly passed over, since, amid 


the general inclination to foreign superstitions,’ the old religious 
laws were not strictly enforced. When Claudius, on account 
of a dispute between the believing and unbelieving Jews at 
Rome, expelled both parties from the city, this act can not nat- 
urally be reckoned a persecution of the Christians. As little 
were the Christians persecuted on account of their religion by 


- Nero, when, to turn from himself the suspicion of setting fire 


to the city, he gave up the despised sectaries to all kinds of tor- 
ture (64). Probably the Neronian persecution was confined 


to Rome,’ though it appears to have continued with some inter- 


1 J. G. Kraft proluss. ii. de nascenti Christi ecclesia sectae judaicae nomine tuta. Er- 
lang. 1771-72.—J. H. Ph. Seidenstiicker diss. de Christianis ad Trajanum usque a Caesar- 
ibus et Senatu Romano pro cultoribus religionis Mosaicae semper habitis. Helmst. 1790. 

2 When Tertullian relates that Tiberius wished Christ to de admitted among the 
Roman deities (Apologeticus, c. 5: Detulit ad Senatum cum praerogativa suffragii sui. 
Senatus,quia non ipse probaverat, respuit. Caesar in sententia mansit comminatus peri- 
culum accusatoribus Christianorum), this is in contradiction to the Roman spirit, the char- 
acter of Tiberius (Sueton. Tiber. c. 36: Externas ceremonias, Aegyptios Judaicosque ritus 
compescuit. C. 69: Circa deos ac religiones negligentior: quippe addictus mathematicae, 
plenusque persuasionis, cuncta fato agi), and the historical relations; while the silence 
of the Reman historians in regard to it would be inexplicable. The less credit is to be 
given to Tertullian’s single testimony, inasmuch as he falsely ascribes to his cotemporary 
Marcus Aurelius, partiality for the Christians, in a passage subsequent to the one in which 
he speaks of Tiberius.. Yet the account is defended by J. W. T. Braun de Tiberii Christum 
in Deorum numerum referendi consilio comm: Bomnnae. 1834. 8. 

3 Sueton. in Claudio, c. 25: Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma 
expulit, cf. Act. xviii. 2. A play on the word, Xpictéc, Xpyordc, sometimes used by the 


- Christians (Justin. Apol. maj. p. 45. Athenag. Leg. 281, 282), sometimes declined (Tertull. 


Apolog. 3: perperam Chrestianus pronuntiatur a vobis). Comp. the programm. of Ammon, 
1803: Ilustratur locus Suetonii de Judaeis imp. Chr. ass. tam. Credner’s Einl. in d. N. T. 
i. ii. 380. 

* Tacit. Ann. xv. 44. Sueton. Nero, c. 16. 

5 First extended to the provinces also by Orosius, vii. 7, whose opinion gained the 
assent of many till H. Dodwell in dissertt. Cyprianicaram (Oxon. 1684. 8.), dissert. xi. de 
paucitate martyrum, § 13, proved the opposite. Yet Theod. Ruinart in praefat..ed acte 


ot 


CHAP. IL—APOST. AGE TO A.D. 70. § 29. INTERNAL PEW NLOPMENT, 85 


ruptions till the death of the tyrant (Peter and Paul suffered 
under him).° 


§ 29. 
INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIANITY. 


The assembly of the apostles and church at Jerusalem had 
allowed the Gentile Christians to neglect the Mosaic law, but in 
so doing they had tacitly recognized its binding force on the 
posterity of Abraham. Since, therefore, on this account: the 
Jewish Christians must have avoided intimate intercourse with 
the Gentile Christians, for the sake of Levitical purity ; and 
since the one party looked upon James, the Lord’s brother, and 
on Peter, as their leaders, while the other took Paul for their 
head (Gal. ii. 9), a certain wall of partition necessarily stood 
between them, and perfect incorporation into one brotherhood 
was impossible. This must have been first felt in many churches 
gathered from among Jews and Gentiles by Paul out of Pales- 
tine (Gal. ii. 11, ff.). The very circumstance, however, contrib- 


Martyr. sincera, § 3, still defended the opinion of Orosius. The inscription pretending to 
have been found in Spain or Portugal: Neroni ob provinciam latronibus et his qui‘novam 
generi humano superstitionem inculcabant, purgatam (Jan. Gruteri inscriptt. t. i. p. 238, 
n. 9), is spurious, and was forged perhaps by Cyriacus of Ancona. See Ferreras histoire 
d’Espagne, i. 192. Defended by J. E. J. Walch persecutionis Christianorum Neronianae 
in Hispania ex ant. monumentis probandae uberior explanatio. Jenae. 1753. 4. But 
compare especially the epistola Hagenbuchii, p. 31-60, there given. 

§ Since the Christians constantly expected Antichrist, as the forerunner of Christ, to be 
near at hand, it is not to be wondered at that Nero, during his persecution, should appear 
to them as Antichrist, and that they entertained the opinion after his death that he had 
not actually died, but should soon return again to undertake a final persecution. Hence 
the Apocalypse (written about 69) xiii: 3; xvii. 10, 11, and the Sybilline oracles, iv. 116 
(which verses, according to Bleek in Schleiermacher’s, De Wette’s, and Liicke’s theol. 
Zeitschrift, i. 244, were composed about the year 80 A.D.) That the like report among 
the heathen originated in that sentiment of the Christians, is at once apparent from the 
form of it, comp. Sueton. Nero, c. 40: Praedictam a mathematicis Neroni olim erat, fore, 
ut quandoque destitueretur. Spoponderant tamen quidam destituto Orientis domina- 
tionem, nonnvlli nominatim regnum Hierosolymorum. Hence the Pseudoneronen. Sueton. 
l.ec.¢. 57. Tacit. Hist. ii. 8. Dio Cassius, lxiv.10. Among the Christians that expecta- 
tion survived for several centuries. Lactant. de Morte persecut. c. 2. Sulpic. Sever. 
‘Hist. sacr. ii. 28, § 1, 29, § 6, dial. ii. c.14. Hieronym. in Daniel xi, 28, in Esaiam xvii. 
13, ad Algasiam, qu. xi., and it was believed that Paul referred to Nero in 2 Thess. ii. 7. 
Chrysostom., Theodoret, Theophyl., and Oecumen. on this passage. Augustin. de civ. Dei, 
XX. C. 19. Compare Corodi’s krit. Gesch. d. Chiliasmus, ii. 309. LAG 8 Rial. in d, 
Offenb. Johannis, 8.248. Credner’s Hinl in d. N. T. i. ii. 704. 


86 FIRST PERIOD:-—DIV. I—A.D, 1-117. 


uted in no small degree, to lead that apostle to a more spiritual 
development of Christianity and one freer from the national 
prejudices of the Jews.’ He attained, accordingly, to the in- 
ward perception of the truth, that spiritual communion with 
God by faith in Christ alone constitutes the essence of Chris- 
tianity. In this conviction, he was not afraid to overstep those 
rules of the council at Jerusalem in a twofold manner, both by 
declaring the obligation of the Jews to observe the Mosaic law 
invalid (Romans vii. 1, ff; 1 Cor. ix. 20, 21; Gal. ii. 15, ff), 
since he regarded that law merely as preparatory to Christ 
(Gal. iii. 24); and also by denying the absolute binding force 
of the laws regarding food given to the Gentile Christians 
(i Cor. viii. 10, 23, ff.), while with reference to all such ex- 
ternal institutes he merely required some regard for the con- 
sciences of weaker brethren, and practiced himself such forbear- 
anee (1 Cor. viii. 9, ff.; x. 32; Acts xxi. 26). The other 
national prejudice of the Jewish Christians, viz. carnal millen- 
narianism, likewise disappeared fiom his mind along with an 
overweening estimate of the Mosaic law. He thought, indeed, 
of the return of Jesus as near at hand (Phil. lv. 5), but he ex- 
pected the triumph of God’s kingdom in a state above the 
earthly (1 Thess. iv. 16, 17; 2 Cor. vy. 1, 2). Christ himself 
was conceived of by Paul, who had seen him in the clouds of 
heaven, more in his spiritual and divine aspect; while the Jew- 
ish apostles, in consequence of the personal intercourse with him 
which they had enjoyed, dwelt more on his human appearance. 

The Palestinian Christians might have overlooked the new 
development of doctrine, inasmuch as they had been accustomed 
to much more important doctrinal differences springing up in 
Judaism, without forfeiting the privileges of ecclesiastical fellow- 
ship. On the other hand, they attributed to Paul’s leose view 
of the law, by which he drew away so many Jews from the ob- 
servance of its precepts, in the Gentile-Christian churches, so 
much the greater mischief, because the other apostles conformed 
to the stricter view (Acts xxi. 20, ff). Nor, on the other side, 
could the Palestinian appear to the Pauline Christians in any © 


1 G. W. Meyer Entwickelung des Paulin. Lehrbegriffs. Altona. 1801. (J.G.F.Leun 
feine Auffassung des Urchristenthums in den Paulin. Briefen. Leipzig. 1803. L. Usten 
Entwickelung des Paul. Lehrbegrifis. Zirich. 1832. 4te Aufl. Neander apost..K. ii 503 
A. F. Dahne Entwickelung des Paulin. Lehrbegriffs. - Halle. 1835. 8. 


CHAP. Il.—APOST. AGE TO A.D. #. § 29. INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 97 


other light than as obtuse yersons, who had not at all penetrated 
into the essence of Christiawty (Heb. vy. 11, 12). 

The difference betwecr. +.cce two parties is still more strongly 
manifested in the abezrations into which individuals fell from 
the respective positicns of the parties. Among the Jewish Chris- 
tians,? a paxty always continued, who asserted the absolute- 
ly-binding aamre of the Mosaic law in relation to the Gen- 
tiles. By this means many belonging to Gentile-Christian 
churches were led astray, so that Paul felt the necessity of 
combating the error (Ep. to the Galatians ; Phil. iii. 2). And 
when persecutions befell the Christians in Palestine, shortly be- 
fore the destruction of Jerusalem, many of them were on the 
point of falling away entirely from Christianity (Hebrews vi. 4, 
ff.; x. 25, ff.),° having been rendered impatient, partly by the 
long-continued disappointment of their millenarian expectations, 
partly because they could not decide upon a complete separation 
from Judaism, such as now appeared necessary. 

~ Among the Gentile Christians, on the contrary, philosophy 
early begen to mingle itself with Christianity. As far as we 
know, Apollos, a cultivated Alexandrian Jew, was the first 
who Jooked at Christianity from a more speculative point of 
view, and first preached it in this form with great eloquence at 
Corinth.‘ Little as he desired to appear in an antagonist posi- 
tion to Paul, the latter declined in reputation, notwithstanding, 
among many of the Corinthians, and divisions arose in the 
church (1 Cor. i—iv.).? Paul wishes to leave it to time to dis- 
close the value of such a philosophical system erected on the 
_ feundation of Christian faith (1 Cor. iii. 11, ff.) ; but he blames 
the divisions occasioned by it, agreeably to his manner of incul- 
cating toleration even in regard to errors, provided they be not 
practically scandalous or claim for themselves exclusive adoption 
(Rom. xiv. 1, ff.). Afterward, however, there appeared among 


2? Day. van Heyst diss. de Judaeo-Christianismo ejusque vi et efficacitate, quam exseruit 
in rem christianam saec. primo. Lugd. Bat. 1828. 8. C. E. Scharling de Paulo Apostolo 
ejusque adversariis. Havniae. 1836. 8. 

3 Brief a. d. Hebrier erliutert v. F. Bleek, i. 60, ff. * Bleek, l. c. p. 423, ff. 

5 Comp., in addition to the commentators, Baur on the Christ-party, in the Tubingen 
Zeitschr. fiir Theol. 1831, iv. 88. Comp. 1836, iv. Neander’s apost. Kirche, i. 292. Dan. 
Schenkel de ecclesia Corinthiaca primaeva factionibus turbata. Basil. 1838. 8. A. F. - 
Dahne die Christuspartei in d. apost. Kirche zu Korinth. Halle. 1841. 8. Die Partei 
angen in d. Gem. zu Korinth, v. F. Becker. Altona. 1842. 8. Th. F. Kniewel ecclesiae 
Corinthioram vetustissimae dissensiones. Gedani. 1842. 4. [Eclectic Review, May, 1846]. 


. 


ss FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. L—AD. 1-117. 


the Gentile Christians actual errors, and those, too, of an im- 
portant mora] bearing, which Paul was obliged to combat with 
all his might. 

The Christians considered themselves, in opposition to the 
rest of the world (6 xéouo¢, 6 aldv obroc, under the Koopoxpérwp, 
Eph. vi. 12, the Od¢ tov aidvocg rotrov, 2 Cor. iv. 4) hastening 
in their perversity to destruction, a chosen people dedicated to 
God, Gyzot,° éxAenrot, kAnroi.. In these appellations there was no 
claim to moral perfection, but a remembrance of their high call- 
ing in Christ. Though it is certain that Christianity in its first 
beginning imparted spiritual enlightenment to many of its ad- 
herents, and transformed them in a moral view, yet it could so 
much the less purify them all from the imperfections of the ed- 
ucation belonging to their nation and time, because it is certain 
that many of them had been led to embrace it by superstitious 
or other interested motives.’ This explains the reason why 
Paul found that he had continually to contend with even gross 
vices among the Gentile Christians, particularly at Corinth 
(1 Cor. v. 6), and in Crete (Titus i. 10, ff); why James saw 
himself obliged to condemn the moral abuse of the Pauline doc- 
trine relative to the power of faith, as that alone which brings 
salvation (Ep.of James); and why the Apocalypse (written 69 
a.D.) denounces seducers in Pergamus (the Nicolattanes),* who 


6 As the later Jews Dvap-oy Dan. viii. 24, ef. vii. 18, ss. 

'T One-sided laudatory descriptions are given in William Cave’s Primitive Christianity, 
or the religion of the ancient Christians in the first ages of the gospel, ed. 5. Lond. 1689 
(translated into German by Frauendorf, Leipz. 1694 and 1723. 8), and Gottfr. Arnold’s 
erste Liebe, d.i. wahre Abbildung der ersten Christen. Frankf. 1696. fol. Leipz. 1732. 
4. Sometimes unjust to the Christians, but otherwise worth reading, is L. A. Paetz 
comm. de yi, quam religio christ. per iii. priora saecula ad hominum animos, mores, ac 
vitam habuit. Gotting. 1799. 4. Comp. A. Neander das christl. Leben der drei ersten 
Jahrhunderte, in his Denkwiurdigkeiten aus d. Gesch. des Christenth. Bd. 1. Berlin. 1823. 
J. G. Stickel et C. F. Bogenhard biga commentationum de morali primaevorum Christian- 
orum conditione. Neostad. ad Orlam. 1826. 8. 

8 Apoc. ii. 6, 14,15. Those who xparoivrec riv didayhv Baraéy (ef. Womb. Xxxi. 16, 
and those who xpatotvtec THY Oiday7v Tov Nikodaitéy are the same. py 3 is de- 
rived from OY ya , even among the Rabbins. Buxtorf. Lex. talmud. p. 314, to which 
corresponds wxG@y Tov Aadv. So first Chr. A. Heumann in Actis erudit. an. 1712, p. 179. 
Ejusd. Poecile, ii. 392. _Miinscher in Gabler’s Journal fiir theol. Liter. v.17.. Eichhorn 
and Ewald in their commentaries on Apoc. ii. 6. Hence the appellation Nicolaitanes was 
not the common name for a sect, but one invented by the Apocalyptic writer. As the 
names of sects were usually formed after the name of the founder, the fathers thought 
of Nicolaus, Acts vi. 5, who, according to Irenaeus, i. 26, iii. 11, and Tertullian de Praeser. 
haer. c. 46, is said to have been the founder of the party; but according to Clemens Alex. 
Strom. ii. p. 490, iii. p. 522, he was merely the unconscious cause of the appellation on 


_= 


CHAP. Il—APOST. AGE TO A.D. 70. § 29. INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 89 


paid no regard to the regulations respecting food enjoined on the 
Gentile Christians, nor even to the prohibition of lewdness (Acts 
xv. 29). But after a philosophical treatment of Christianity 
had procured friends in many churches of the Gentile Christians, 
the superstitious philosophy of the times also speedily crept in 
among the Christians, first of all, as it would appear, in Asia 
Minor, and threatened morality with still greater danger by 
recommending chimerical, mysterious doctrines, and an arbitrary 
asceticism, as the true mode of purifying the soul. Against 
such errorists as united a Jewish-heathen asceticism with a pe- 
culiar philosophy, Paul had first to warn the Colossians (Col. ii. 
8, 16, ff.).° The same tendency spread itself as far as Ephesus, 
where it manifested itself in high-flying speculations, in prohi- 
bitions of marriage and meats (1 Tim. i. 5-7; iv. 38, 73 vi. 
20), and manifestly contributed to the immorality of that place 
(2 Tim. iii. 6). The attempt, also, of Hymeneus and Philetus 
to explain spiritually (2 Tim. ii. 18) the doctrine of the resur- 
rection of the body, so offensive to the heathen (1 Thessal. iv. 
13, ff; 1 Cor. xv. 12, 35, ff), an attempt that proceeded from 
the same tendency, was not destitute of a moral influence at 
this time, when the doctrine was most intimately connected with 
that of retribution.’° That Paul did not reject philosophy as 
such, he has proved in his conduct toward Apollos; the philos- 
ophy against which he warns his readers (Col. ii. 8) is that sc7- 
ence, falsely so called (1 Tim. vi. 20) which, as Paul had be- 


account of his words which were misunderstood by others, é7¢ mapayphoacfa tH capi 
dei. (mapaypaobat is, 1. to abuse, used particularly, according to Suidas de concubitu 
immodico; 2. equiv. to dsaypaabar, to put to death, as Justin. Apol. maj, c. 49.) 

9 Matth. Schneckenburger tber die Inrlehrer zu Colossa, annexed to his treatise Ueber 
das Alter der jiid. Proselytentaufe. Berlin. 1828. 8. 8. 187, ff. The same author's Beitrage 
zur Hinl. ins N.T. Stuttgart. 1832. S. 146. The same author's Bemerkungen tber die 
Trrlehrer zu Colossi, theol. Studien. u. Krit. 1832, iv. 841. Neander apost. K.i. 474. F. 
H. Rheinwald de pseudodoctoribus. Bonnae. 1834. 4._ Osiander iiber die colossischen Irr- 
lehrer, in the Tibingen Zeitschrift f. Theol. 1834, iii.96. [Eclectic Review, March 1845.] 

10 That consciousness and feeling could not be conceived of apart from bodies, was a very 
common notion of antiquity. Comp. the Epicurean Vellejus in Cic. de Nat. deor. ii. c. 12: 
Quod (Plato) sine corpore ullo Deum vult esse—id quale esse possit, intelligi non potest. 
Careat enim sensu necesse est, careat etiam prudentia, careat voluptate. The heathen 
Caecilius in Minucius Felix, c. 11, says: Vellem tamen sciscitari, utramne sine corpore 
an cum corporibus, et corporibus quibus, ipsisne an innovatis, resurgatur? Sine corpore? 
hoe, quod sciam, neque mens, neque ani : a, nec vita est. Ipso corpore? sed jam ante dilap- 
sumest. Aliocorpore? ergo homo novus nascitur, non prior ille reparatur. Justini dial. c. 
Tryph. c. 1: drabic yap To dcepuarov. Tertulliani Apologeticus, c. 48: Ideo repraesen- 
tabunter et corpora, quia neque pati quicquam potest anima sola sine stabili materia, 
1.€., carne caet, 





90 


fore anticipated, was only the first beginning of still greater er- 
rors, of the later gnostic reveries (2 Tim. iii. 1, ff.).™ ‘ 

In strong relief to these defects of the time, the brotherly 
love, the benevolence (2 Cor. viii. 1, ff; Heb. vi. 10; xiii. 1, ff), 
the patient endurance of the hostility of the unbelieving (Phil. i. 
29; 1 Thess. i. 6; ii 14; 2 Thess. i. 4, f£.; Heb. x. 32, ff), 
and the holy zeal for Christianity, form the bright part of the 
picture presented by the first Christians. The church at Philippi, 
in its tender attachment to the apostle Paul, appears to us par- 
ticularly attractive. (Comp. the Ep. to the Philippians.) 


. 


§ 30. 


CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH. 


Die Anf. d. christl. Kirche u. ihrer Verfassung von R. Rothe. Bd.i. Wittenb.1837.S. 141. 


‘The new churches out of Palestine formed themselves after 
the pattern of the mother church in Jerusalem. Their presi- 
dents were the elders (npeoBirepor, érioxoror),* officially of equal 


11 The traces of Gnosis in the N.T. are exaggerated, particularly by Henr. Hammond 
diss. de Antichristo (in his diss. iv. quibus episcopatus jura adstruuntur. Lond. 1651), and 
in his Annot, ad N. T. (lat. per J. Clericum. Amst. 1698, fol.) But, on the other side, C. 
Chr. Tittmann (tract. de vestigiis Gnosticorum in N. T. frustra quaesitis. Lips. 1773. 8), 
goes too fat. Comp. Joh. Horn iiber die biblische Gnosis. Hannover. 1805. 8. 

1 That both appellations are the same follows from Acts xx. 17, 28; Tit.i.5,7; Phil.i.1; 
1 Tim. iii. 1,8. Acknowledged by Hieronymus Epist 82, (al. 83) ad Oceanum: Apud vet- 
eres iidem episcopi et presbyteri, quia illud nomen dignitatis est, hoc aetatis. Epist. 101, 
ad Evangelum see below, § 34, note 2.—Idem ad Tit. i. 7: Idem est ergo presbyter, qui 
episcopus : et antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent, et diceretur in popu- 
lis: ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae, communi presbyterorum consilio ec- 
clesiae gubernabantur. Postquam vero unusquisque eos, quos baptizaverat, suos putabat 
esse, non Christi; in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de presbyteris electus superponere- 
tur caeteris, ad quem omnis ecclesiae cura pertineret, et schismatum semina tollerentur. 
Putat aliquis non scripturarum, sed nostram esse sententiam, episcopum et presbyterum 
unum esse, et aliud aetatis, aliud esse nomen officii: relegat apostoli ad Philippenses verba, 
dicentis. - Here follow the above cited passages; then: Haec propterea, ut ostenderemus 
apud veteres eosdem fuisse presbyteros, quos et episcopos: paulatim vero ut dissensionum 
plantaria evellerentur, ad unum.omnem sollicitudinem esse delatam. Sicut ergo presbyteri 
sciunt, se ex ecclesiae consuetudine ei, qui sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subjectos: ita 
episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine, quam dispositionis dominicae veritate, presbyteris 
esse majores, et in commune debere ecclesiam regere. Augustini Epist. 82, ad Hieron. c. 
33: Quamquam secundum honorum vocabula, quae jam ecclesiae usus obtinuit, episcopa- 
tus presbyterio major sit: tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est. Cf. 
Chrysostomi Hom. i.in Ep. ad Philipp. Theodoret. comm. in Philipp.i.1. Itis remark- 
able how long afterward persons maintained this view of the original identity of bishops 
and presbyters. Isidorus Hispal. Etymol. vii. c. 12, transcribes that passage from Hieron. 
Epist. ad Oceanum. Bernaldus Constantiensis (about 1088) the most zealous defender of 





CHAP. IIL—APOSTOLIC AGE TO § 30. CONSTITUTION. 9} 


rank, although, in many churches, individuals among them had 
a personal authority over the others.” Under the superintend- 


Gregory VII. appeals on this subject, in his de presbyterorum officio tract. {in monumento- 
rum res Allemannorum illustrantt. S. Blas. 1792. 4. t. ii. p. 384, ss.), to the New Testa- 
ment and Jerome, and then continues: Quum igitur presbyteri et episcopi antiquitus 
idem fuisse legantur, etiam eandem ligandi atque solvendi potestatem et alia nunc episco- 
pis specialia habuisse non dubitantur. Postquam autem presbyteri ab episcopali excellentia 
cohibiti sunt, coepit eis non licere, quod licuit, videlicet quod ecclesiastica auctoritas solis 
pontificibus exequendum delegavit. Even a pope, Urbanus IL., in Conc. Benevent. ann. 
1091, can. 1: Saeros autem ordines dicimus diaconatum et presbyteratum. Hos siquidem 
solos primitiva legitur ecclesia habuisse: super his solum praeceptum habemus apostoli 
(pretty nearly the same words are found in Petri Lomb. Sentent. lib. iv. dist. 24, c. 8), 
Hence even Gratian receives the above passages of Jerome ad Tit. i. (dist. xev. c. 5), 
epist. ad Evangel. (dist. xciii. c. 24) u. Isidori Hisp. (dist. xxi. c. 1) without scruple. The 
same view is maintained by the Glossa ad Gratiani decret. dist. xciii. c. 24, Cardinalis 
§. Marci at the Costnit. Concilium 1414 (v. d. Hardt. Concil. Const. ii. 228), Nicolaus 
Tudeschus, archiepiscop. Panormitanus (about 1428) super prima parte Primi cap. 5 
(edit. Lugdun. 1547. fol. 112, b.: Olim Presbyteri in commune regebant ecclesiam 
et ordinabant sacerdotes), Nicolaus Cusanus (about 1435) de Concordantia cath. lib. iii. c. 2, 
(in Schardii syntagma tractataum, p.,358), where he remarks, in opposition to the genuine- 
ness of the Pseudo-Isidore letters of Clement: Invenitur insuper in ipsis epistolis de 
episcoporum a sacerdotibus differentia, quae longo tempore post hoc, ut Hieronymo placet 
et Damaso, in ecclesia orta est. Even the papal canonist Jo. Paul Lancelottus, in his Insti- 
tatt. juris canon. lib. i. tit. 21, § 3, unfolds the same view (1563) with a sunt, qui affirment, 
without adding any thing in refutation of it. Since no value was set, during the middle 
ages, on the distinction between the institutio divina and ecclesiastica, a distinction on 
which modern Catholics insist, that view could not disturb ecclesiastical practice. But 
after the Council of Trent, sess. xxiii. (July, 1563) cap. 4, had declared, episcopos, qui 
in apostolorum locum successerunt,—positos—a spiritu sancto, regere ecclesiam Dei, eosque 
presbyteris superiores esse etc., the old view became suspicious, although the council did 
not expressly or definitely maintain the institutio divina. Michael de Medina (about 1570} 
de Orig. sacr. homin. did not hesitate to declare, illos patres materiales fuisse haereticos, sed 
in his patribus ob eorum reverentiam hoc dogma non esse damnatum. But Bellarmin de 
Clericis, lib. i. c. 15, calls this sententiam valde inconsideratam, and would rather resort to 
the expedient of an interpretation. Although, afterward, among Catholic theologians, 
Edmundus Richerius (Defensio libelli de eccles. et polit. potest, t. ii. p. 52, ss.) defended the 
view of Jerome, and John Morin (de sacris ecelesiae ordinationibus, p. iii. Exerc. iii. c. 3) 
at least asserted, that the opinion was not heretical, episcopos non jure divino esse pres- 
byteris superiores; yet, since the Tridentine council, the institutio divina of episcopacy, 
and its original distinction from presbyteratus became the general doctrine of the Catholic 
church, which the English Episcopalians also followed in this particular, while the other 
Protestant churches returned to,the most ancient doctrine and regulation on the subject. 
The first leading works in favor of the modern Catholie view are Petavii de Ecclesiastica 
hierarchia, libb. v. and dissertatt. theologic. lib. i. in his Theolog. dogmat. tom. iv. p. 164. 


_ On the other side, Walonis Messalini (Claud. Salmasii) diss. de episcopis et presbyteris. 


Lugd. Bat. 1641. 8. Dav. Blondelli apologia pro sententia Hieronymi de episcopis et 
presbyteris. Amstelod. 1646. 4.. Against these H. Hammond wrote dissert. iv. quibus 
episcopatus jura ex sacra scriptura et prima antiquitate adstruunter. Lond. 1651. The 
controversy was still continued; on the side of the Episcopalians by Jo. Pearson, William 
Beveridge, Henr. Dedwell, Jos. Bingham, Jac. Usserius. The view of the Presbyterians 
was defended by Jo. Dallaeus, Camp. Vitringa; also the Lutherans, Joach. Hildebrand, 
Just. Henn. Boehmer, Jo. Franc. Buddeus, Christ. Matth. Pfaff, &c. Jo. Phil. Gabler de epis- 
copis primae ecclesiae Christ. eoramque origine diss. Jenae. 1805, 4. Rothe’s Anf. d. 
christl. Kirche, i. 171. 

2 So > Epeptian: appears to have had a certain superiority for a length of time in Colosse 


74 
‘ 


92 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 1-117. 


ence of these elders were the deacons and deaconesses (Rom. 
xvi. 1; 1. Tim. v. 9, 10). All these officers received their 
support, in so far as they needed, as well as the poor, from the 
free-will contributions of the church (1 Tim. v. 17; 1 Cor. ix. 
13). The duty of teaching as an office was by no means in- 
~cumbent on the elders,‘ although the apostle wishes that they 
should be didaxrixoi, apt to teach (1 Tim. iii. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 24). 
The capacity for instructing and edifying in the assemblies was 
rather considered as a free gift of the Spirit (ydpeopa tvevparixsv), 
which manifested itself inamany Christians, although in different 
modes (npoditn¢—diddoxaroc—yAdooy Aaday, 1 Cor. xii. 28-31, 
ce. xiv.). Still less was a distinct priestly order known at this 
time ; for the whole society of Christians formed a royal priesthood 
(GaciAcvov tepdtevua, 1 Peter ii. 9), God’s peculiar people («Ajpoe, 
nomi, 1 Peter v.3; cf. Deut. iv. 20; ix. 29).° The Christians 
met in private houses; in many cities the churches were divided 
_ into several smaller communities meeting in different places.‘ 


(Col. i. 7, iv. 12); then Archippus, supported by the reputation of his father Philemon (Col 

iv. 17; Philemon i. 2). Comp.the oi{vyoc yvyccog, Phil. iv. 3. 

3 Respecting Deaconesses see Rothe, i. 243. 

+ Against the division into presbyteros docentes and regentes (first made by Calvin. In- 
stitutt. christ. relig: lib. iv. c. 3, § 8: yverbi ministros s. episcopos and gubernatores s. sen- 
iores ex plebe delectos—afterward made a part of the constitution of the Presbyterian 
church) see Vitringa de Synag. vetere, lib.ii.c.2. Neander apost. Kirche, i. 186. Rothe, 
i: 221. : 

5 Tertullianus de Exhort. castit. c. 7: Differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit 
ecclesiae auctoritas. Ambrosiaster (Hilarius Diaconus), about 380, in comment. ad Ephes. 
iv. 11: Primum omnes docebant et omnes baptizabant, quibuscunque diebus vel tempori- 

. bus fuisset occasio; nec enim Philippus tempus quaesivit aut diem, quo ennuchum baptiz- 
aret neque jejunium interposuit.—Ut ergo cresceret plebs et multiplicaretur, omnibus inter 
initia concessum est et evangelizare et baptizare et scripturas in ecclesia explanare. At 
ubi omnia loca. complexa est ecclesia, conventicula constituta sunt, et caetera officia in eccle- 
siis sunt ordinata, ut nullus de clericis [perhaps ceteris] auderet, qui ordinatus non esset, 
praesumere officium quod sciret non sibi creditum vel concessum. Et coepit alio ordine 
et providentia gubernari ecclesia, quia siomnes eadem possent, irrationabile esset, et 
vulgaris res et vilissima videretur, Hinc ergo-est, unde nunc neque diaconi in popule 
praedicant, neque clerici vel laici baptizant, neque quocunque die credentes tinguntur, 
nisi aegri. Ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta apostoli ordinationi, quae nunc in 
ecclesia est, quia haec inter primordia sunt scripta. 

6 txxAnoiar Karz’ olxov, Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Philem. ver. 2; Col. iv. 15. N. Chr. 
Kist iiber den Ursprung der bischéfl. Gewalt, (aus d. Archief voor Kerkerlijke Geschiedenis, 
Deel. 2, translated into German in Illgen’s Zeitschrift fiir die hist. Theol. ii. 2, 54), thinks 
that these churches in houses, belonging to one town, were established by different teach- 
ers, and without a common government. Baur (Pastoralbriefe, S. 78, ff.) infers from Titus 
i. 5, that every church had but one elder, and that where several elders are represented ss 
being in one city each governed independently a particular church. The analogy of the 
synagogue, however is in favor of the plurality of elders in a church; for the connection of 
the elders of one City into a college, and, consequently, of the churches in houses into one 


Y' 


a Sad 
CHAP. IL—APOSTOLIC AGE TO A.D. 70. §30. CONSTITUTION. 93 


In their assemblies, there was an interchange of reading out of 
the Old 'Testament, explanation of what was read, free discourse, 
singing,’ and prayer (Col. iii. 16; 1 Tim. iv. 13). The letters 
of Paul also were read, and sent from one church to another 
(Col. iv. 16; 1 Thess. v. 27). The covenant-supper of Jesus 
was solemnized in an actual evening meal (dyad, 1 Cor. xvi. 
20). The kiss of charity was customary—the token of broth- 
erly love in the assemblies (¢iAqua dyannc, piAnua dytov, Rom. 
xvi. 16; 1 Pet.v. 14). The other regulations of the churches 
were left free to each society, innocent national customs being 
observed (1 Cor. xi. 4); and therefore they differed in.separate 
communities. While the Jewish Christians of Palestine re- 
tained the entire Mosaic law, and consequently the Jewish fes- 
tivals, the Gentile Christians observed also the Sabbath and 
the passover (1 Cor. v. 6~8), with reference to the last scenes 
of Jesus’ life, but without Jewish superstition (Gal. iv. 10; 
Col. ii. 16). In addition to these, Sunday, as the day of Christ’s 
resurrection (Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Apoc. i. 10, 4 kvpeaxs 
nuépa®), was devoted to religious services. All. bodily asceticism 
was valued only as a means of virtue, and left to the free dis- 
cretion of individuals. Thus, fasting was looked upon as a suit- 
able preparation for prayer (Acts xiii. 2, 3; xiv. 23); celibacy 
was regarded by Paul desirable on account of the distressing 
times impending (1 Cor. vii. 26); but this very apostle requires 
that all these abstinences should be left to the free choice of 
every one (Romans xiv. 17; 1 Cor. viii. 7; 1 Tim. iv. 3). 
Immoral members were excluded from the church (1 Cor. v. 2- 
13), repentance and improvement forming the conditions of res- 
toration (2 Cor. ii. 5-8). 


church, (even if every house-church, as every synagogue, had its particular elders), those 
passages speak in which the collected elders of one city appear and act as a united whole. 
Comp. Acts xv. 4, xx. 7; Phil. i. 1; James v. 14. Comp. Rothe, i. 180, ff 

7 On the natare of the singing see Isidor. Hispal. de eccles. offic. i. 5: Primitive ecclesia 
ita psallebat, ut modico flexu vocis faceret psallentem resonare, ita ut pronuntianti vicinior 
esset quam canenti (out of Augustini Confess. X. xxxiii. 2: [Alexandrinus episcopus 
Athanasius] tam modico flexu yocis faciebat sonare lectorem psalmi, ut pronuntianti vi- 
cinior esset quam canenti). 

§ J. Th. Fr. Drescher de veterum Christian. agapis. Giessae, 1824. 8. 

* These passages furnish valid proof, when taken in connection with the fact, that the 
observance of Sunday is presupposed as an established custom, in Epist. Barnab. c. 15: 
"Ayouev tiv huépav tiv dyddny eic ebopoatynr, ev 7 Kal 6 Inaod¢ dvéaty éx vexpOv Kat 
gavepwbeic dvéBy eic Tove vipavotc. Cf. C. Chr. L. Franke de diei dominici apud veteres 
Christianos celebratione comm. Halae.1826.8. Neander apost. K. i. 198. 


94 FIRST PERIOD—DIV. LAD. 1-117. 


The idea set forth by Christ of the union of his people with 
himself, and with one another in one joint body (John x. 16; 
xv. 1, ff.), was kept alive by the apostles (oéua tod Xpiorov, 
Romans xii. 5; 1 Cor, x. 17; xii. 13; Ephes. ii. 16; iv. 4; 
xii.; xvi.; Col. iii. 15: éxxAnoia, Acts ix. 31; xx. 28; 1 Cor. 
x. 32; xii. 28; Ephes. iii. 10)..° This unity did not, indeed, 
obtain, for a long time, the corresponding external form ; but it 
had an external opposition in the unbelieving, and an external 
center-point in the apostles,'' who exercised a general survey 
over all the churches (2 Cor. xi. 28), and were co-overseers in 
every single church (ovpnpeoBirepor, 1 Peter v. 1). As they 
had themselves divided the large sphere of their activity by the 
separation into apostles of the Jews and of the Gentiles (Gal. 
ii. 7-9) ; so, again, did each one find in the churches he had 
himself founded, his narrower field of labor (Romans xv. 20), 
without, however, being prevented by this circumstance from 
being zealous for Christianity in other churches also. The first 
arrangement in the newly planted churches, even the appoint- 
ment of elders in them, was made by the apostles themselves 
(Acts xiv. 23). Afterward, the officers belonging to societies 
of Christians were appointed by elders with the consent of the 
churches.’ In the newly established churches, Paul was ac- 
customed to transfer the first arrangement and superintendence 
‘to one of his assistants (Acts xvii. 14; 1 Tim. i. 3, ff.; Titus 
i. 5, ff.), who then had a routine of duties similar to those of 
the later bishops, though not bound to any particular church.*® 
They belonged rather to the class of teachers who, without being 
confined in one place, preached the gospel as opportunity offered 
(cvayyedcorai, 2 Tim. iv. 5). James, the Lord’s brother, occu- 
pied a peculiar position. He stood in Jerusalem, where he con- 
tinued to reside, at the head of the church, in equal esteem with 
the apostles, and with extensive influence and reputation, quite 
in the relation of a later bishop, but without the appellation.“* 

‘0 Rothe, i. 282. 

1l Rothe, i. 302. 

12 Clement of Rome, Epist. i. 44, says, that the presbyters were at first appointed 
(katacrabévrec) by the apostles, afterward i@’ érépwv éAAoyinwy dvdpdv, ovvevdoxnod- 
one The éxxAnoiac madoyc, as according to Cyprian, Epist. 52, the bishop was chosen de 
clericorum testimonio, de plebis suffragio. 

13 Rothe, i. 305. 


4 Gal. i. 19, ii. 12; Acts xii. 17, xv. 13, xxi. 18. (Comp. § 25, note 2. § 26, 6, note 4). 
Rothe, S. 264 : 


CHAP. IL—APOST. AGE TO A.D. 70. $31. JEWISH DISTURBANCES. 95 


§ 31. 
TIME OF THE JEWISH DISTURBANCES. 


The Jewish expectations of the Messiah had constantly been 
most lively under the oppression of foreign rulers, and had express- 
ed themselves among the Palestinian Jews in an Apocalyptic liter- 
ature, shaped after the old Hebrew prophecies, but far surpassing 
these in definiteness and richness in imagery, viz.: the book of Dan- 
zel (under Antiochus Epiphanes) ; the book of Enoch? (ander Herod 
the Great). The times of oppression, in like manner, before and 
after the destruction of Jerusalem, furnished new nourishment 
to such expectations (4th book of Ezra).* Alexandrian Jews, 


1 Bleek iiber Verf. u. Zweck des B. Daniel, a review of the inquiries made into these 
points in the theol. Zeitschrift v. Schleiermacher, De Wette und Liicke, iii.171. Against 
Hengstenberg (die Authentie des Daniel u. die Integritat des Sacharjah. Berlin. 1831) 
and Havernick (Comm. tiber d. B. Daniel. Hamburg. 1832) comp. C. v. Lengerke d. B. 
Daniel. Kd6nigsberg. 1835, Redepenning in the theol. Studien u. Krit. 1833, iii. 831, 
1835, i. 163. ; 

2 Preserved in an Ethiopic version first translated into English by R. Laurence. 
Oxford, 3d edition, 1838. A. G. Hoffmann’s Buch Henoch in vollstindiger (translated 
from the English as far as the 55th chapter, the remainder from the Ethiopic) Uebersetzung, 
mit Commentar, Einleitung und Excursen. 2 Abth. Jena. 1833, 38. 8vo. According to 
Laurence, Hoffmann, i. 23, Gfrérer (Jahrhundert des Heils, i. 96) and Wieseler (die 70 
Wochen und die 63 Jahrwochen des Proph. Daniel. Gdttingen. 1839, 8. 163), it belongs 
to the first year of the reign of Herod the Great; according to Hoffmann’s later opinion 
(ii. Vorr. S. 11), to the conclusion of the Maccabean period. Liicke (Einl. in die Offenbar. 
Johannis, 5. 60) places it in the time of the Jewish war, probably after the destruction of 
Jerusalem. So, in like manner, Credner (Einl. in d. N. T. i. ii. 712), in the time about 
which the Apocalypse was written. Unquestionably, Christian elements have been 
pointed out by Liicke (S. 75) in the book, which, however, came into it by means of a 
later revision. [Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, book of Enoch.]} 

3 The Greek original is lost. There are preserved an old Latin translation (in J. A. 
Fabricii codex pseudepigraphus V. T. iii. 173), an Ethiopic (Primi Ezrae libri, qui apud 
Vulgatum appellatur quartus, versio aethiopica, nunc primo in medium prolata, et latine ~ 
angliceque reddita a R. Laurence. Oxon. 1820. 8), and a paraphrasing Arabic one 
(translated into English in Whiston’s Primitive Christianity, iv.;-its variations are also 
found in Fabricus,1.c. On the book comp. Corodi’s Krit. Gesch. des Chiliasmus, i. 179; 
Licke a. a. O. S. 78; Gfrdfer a. a. O: i. 69; Wieseler a. a. O. S. 206. Ch. J. van der 
Viis disp. crit. de Ezrae libro apocrypho, valgo quarto dicto. Amstelod. 1839. 8. Lau- 
rence fixes the time of its writing between 28 and 25 B.c. Mick. Merkel (Vermischte 
Anmerkungen aus d. Philologie, Kritik, und Theologie, Erste Samm. Leipz. 1772, 8, 75, 
ff.) places it in the time of Vespasian. On the other hand, Corodi, Liicke, Gfrofer, and 
Wieseler, in the end of the first century. It was written by a Jew, but interpolated by 3 
Christian hand. From the latter proceed cap. i. ii. xv. and xvi. entirely. 


96 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 1-117. 


on the other hand, made use of the widely spread form of the 
sybilline oracles,‘ in order to oppose idolatry, and to procure re- 
spect among the heathen for their people and their destiny. 
The more the Christians were inclined to see the beginning of 
the end in the oppressions of that time, the easier access to them 
did such writings obtain, and the more readily were they imi- 
tated (first Christian sybillines.)° 

When Jewish fanaticism pressed severely on the Christians 
of Jerusalem immediately before its destruction, and even James, 
the Lord’s brother (69 a.p.), fella sacrifice to it ;° the most of _ 


4 After the genuine sybillines had been burnt along with the capitol, 74 B.c., and 
persons began to collect new sybillines, they sprang up in so great numbers that the loss 
in the capitol was not only replaced very soon, but Augustus could even cause such 
writings to be deposited in the temple of Apollo on the Palatine .(Sueton. Aug. c. 
31). Although at that time the possession of all soothsaying books was forbidden, yet 
numerous sybilline predictions were constantly circulated among the people (Tacit. Amn. 
vi. 12). The first certain trace of Jewish sybillines is to be found in Joseph. Ant. i. 4,3 
(cf. orac. Sybill. iii. 35). The sybillines now extant (Sybillinorum oraculorum lib. viii. ed. 
Jo. Opsopoeus. Paris. 1589, ed. 3, 1607, gr. 8vo. Servatius Gallacus. Amst. 1689. 4. 
Gallandius in his Bibl. pp. i. 133: to these have been lately added, lib. xi—xiv..in Ang 
Maji scriptorum vett. nova collectio, t. iii. p. 3. Romae. 1828. 4) were usually before 
this time assigned to the second century, and to the Montanists; by many (Casaubon, 
Scaliger, Blondel) to Montanus himself. Huet conjectured their authors to be the Gnos- 
tics; Cave, Alexandrian Christians; Semler, Tertullian. Grotius regarded them as 
Jewish productions, afterward interpolated by Christians. G. J. Vossius, however, 
perceived that they proceeded from several authors at different times. Birger Thorlacius 
(libri Sybillistarum veteris ecclesiae crisi, quatenus monumenta christiana sunt, subjecti, 
Hann. 1815. 8, and Conspectus doctr. christ. qualis in Sibyllistarum libris continentur, 
1816, also in F. Minter Miscellanea Hafniensia 1, i. 113) assumed that they had been for 
the greater part composed between 100 and 170 a.D., in Phrygia—some of them, too, by 
Alexandrians. According to Bleek (iiber die Entstehung u. Zusammensetzung d. sib. 
Or. in Schleiermacher’s, De Wette’s u. Liicke’s theol. Zeitschrift, i. 120, and ii. 172) the 
oldest of them are Jewish oracles belonging to the second century before Christ; the 
youngest, Christian oracles of the fifth century after Christ. The greatest part of the 
third book, and several sections in the fifth (1. c. i. 198, ii. 182, 194), proceed from Alexan- 
drian Jews. Gfrdrer (Philo. ii. 121) agrees with him in this opinion, and points out 
Jewish-Alexandrian dogmas in these sections. 

5 According to Bleek (I. c. i. 240, ii. 232), the fourth book was composed by a Christian, 
about 80 a.D., probably in Asia Minor. © 

6 Josephus Antiq. xx. 9, 1 (also in Eusebius, ii. 23), relates: “The high-priest Ananus, 
a Sadducee, a severe and cruel man, made use of the time in which, after the death of 
Festus, the procurator, his successor Albinus had not yet entered on office (63 a.D.): 
Kabiver ovvédpiov KpitGv: Kai napayayov eic aito [Tov adeAgov “Incod Tod Aeyouévov 
Xpiorod, IdxwBoc évoua ait, Kai] tivac [étépove], O¢ mapavounodytwy Katyyopiav 
Totnoamevoc, Tapédwke Aevebycopévovc. Many pious and zealous Jews were much dis- 
pleased with this proceeding, and accused Ananus before King Agrippa and Albinus. 
Agrippa, therefore, deposed him from the office of high-priest.”” Le Clerc, however, Art. 
crit. ii, 223, Lardner Suppl. vol. iii. cap. 16, sect. 5, and Credner (Einl. u. d. N. T. i. ii. 
581) regard, on important grounds, the bracketed words as spurious. On the other hand, 
Hegesippus, in Euseb. ii. 23, according to the passage given in a preceding note (4, § 26), 
narrates the death of James in this manner: “ By his preaching he had gained over many 


e 


CHAP. Il.—APOST. AGE TO A.D. 70. §31. JEWISH DISTURBANCES. 97 


the members of the church fled to Pella.7 About this time also 
John repaired. to Asia Minor, and there, full of the impressions 
which he had taken along with him from Palestine, and per- 
ceiving in these oppressions the beginning of the last events, 
wrote the Apocalypse (69 a.v.).2 This was the commencing 
point of a rich apocalyptic literature among the Christians. 


of the people to Christ, and stood generally in the highest repute as the righteous one. 
Hence the scribes and Pharisees demanded of him a solemn denial of Christ: "Eoryoav 
obv tov "IdxwBov éxt 76 xTepbytov Tod vaod, Kai Expagauv aito wai elxov- dikate, @ 
ndvtecg meiPecbar dgeiAouev, éxel 6 2adg TAavatat dxicw "Incod Tod cTavpwlévtoe, 
aniyyethov juiv, tic 4 Bipa "Incod rot cravpwhévtoc. (Gipa as in Rabbinic Wy 
estimate, value. See Credner in the new Jena A. L. Z. August, 1843, S.795. “What is 
the disclosure; the truth of Christ?”) Kat drexpivato gwrg meydAy* Ti we emepwrate 
mept "Incod Tod viod Tod avOpdrov ; Kai abto¢ KdOyrar bv TO obpave éx desidv THe ueya- 
Ang Svvauewc, kal péArer Epyecbar ext tév vedeAdv Tod odpavod. Since now many 
agreed with him, the scribes and Pharisees resolved to put him to death. ’AvaSdvtec 
obv KatéBadrov Tov dixaov—kai jpgavto APalerv abtév. He was not, however, killed 
instantaneously, but still prayed for his murderers: Kai 7a8dév tic dx’ abrav ei¢ tév 
kvagéwr TO bAov, év © dreniele Ta ludtia, RveyKe KaTa THE KEGaAye Tod dikdiov. Kai 
obtac éuaptipnoev. Kai éawav abrov éxi TO Téxw Tapa TH vag, Kal étt abTod 7H aTHAN 
uéver Tapa TO vad. Kai ebfig Oveoractavig wodsopxet abtotc. In opposition to 
Josephus, who places the death of James in the year 63, there agree with the designa- 
tion of time by Hegesippus, agreeably to which the siege of Jerusalem took place imme- 
diately after James’s death, Eusebius, iii. 11 (Symeon was chosen successor to James, 
peta THY "laxGBov waptupiay Kai THY abtixa yevouévny GAwow Tie ‘IepoveadAjy), although 
in his chronicle he places the death of James and the inauguration of Symeon, after 
Josephus, in the seventh of Nero; the Clementines (so far the Ep. Clemen. Rom. ad 
Jacob, e1, in Cotelerii Patres ap. i. 611, and Clementina Epitome de gestis S. Petri, c. 147, 
1, c. p. 798, announce that Peter died before James), and the Paschal Chronicle, which 
(ed. Bonn. i. 460) places the death of James in the first year of Vespasian’s reign. Comp. 
Credner Finleit. in d. N. T. i. ii. 580. Rothe Anfange d. christl. Kirche, i. 275. 

7 Euseb. H. E. iii. 5. Epiphanius Haer. xxix. 7, de mensuris et ponderibus, c. 15. 

8 This time is specified by Ewald Comm. in Apoc. p. 48, and Liicke Einleit in d. Offen- 
bar. Joh. S. 244. I can not, however, bring myself to refuse to the apostle John the 
authorship of the book. The author designates himself as the apostle; the oldest wit- 
nesses declare him to be so. Had the book been forged in his name thirty years before 
his death, he would certainly have contradicted it, and this contradiction would have 
reached us through Irenaeus from the school of John’s disciples. On the contrary, the 
later contradictions of the apostolic origin proceed from doctrinal prepossession alone. 
The internal difference in language and mode of thought between the Apocalypse, which 
John, whose education was essentially Hebrew, and his Christianity Jewish-Christian of 
the Palestinian character, wrote, and the gospel and epistles which he had composed after 
an abode of from twenty to thirty years among the Greeks, is a necessary consequence 
of the different relations in which the writer was placed, so that the opposite would 
excite suspicion. There is much at the same time that is cognate, proving continuous- 
ness of cultivation in the same author. Comp. F. Liicke Versuch einer vollstandigen 
Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannis, und in die gesammte epokalyptische Literatur. 
Bonn, 1832. 8vo. 


— VOL. 1.—T 


98 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 1-117. 


THIRD CHAPTER. 


AGE OF JOHN: FROM 70-117. 


§ 32. 
FATE OF THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS IN PALESTINE. 


Although a Jewish Christian church soon formed itself among 
the ruins of Jerusalem,’ and again selected a relative of Jesus, 
Symeon,” to be its head, yet, after the judgment which had be- 
fallen Judaism,* this church could no longer continue to be a 
model mother-church, and the center of Christendom. We have 
a proof: that these Christians were continually hated by the 
Jews, in the composition of the work called D°7m0 n373,* and in 
the crucifixion of Symeon at the age of 120° (107). After the 


1 Epiphanius de mensuris et ponderibus, c. 15. According to c. 14, the small Christian 
church on Mount Zion was among the few buildings that were spared. , 

2 Euseb. iii. 11, See's 31, note 6. Hegesippus apud Euseb. iv. 22: Kal pera Td 
apTupyoat ‘TénaBov Tov dikatov—ndAw 6 éx Oeiov abtod XSuusdv 6 Tod KAwra Kabio- 
tara. érioxoroc’ bv mpoéGevto mavtec, OvTa ave Wiov Tod Kupiov, detrepov. Clopas, 
the father of Symeon, was, according to Hegesippus in Euseb. iii. 11, a brother of Joseph. 
(Sophron. in app. ad Hieronymi Catal. § 6, represents this Symeon as Judas, the brother 
of James, and moreover the apostle Simon Zelotes. In opposition to this, see Sam. Bas- 
nage Annales politico-ecclesiastici ad ann. 31, no. 72.) These Jewish Christians generally 
preferred to choose relatives of our Lord as presidents of their churches. So Hegesippus 
relates (in Huseb. iii. 20) that the grandchildren of Judas, a brother of Christ, after they 
had been set. free by Domitian, 7yjoac8a Tov tthe oo dv 67 udpTvpac duo Kai 
and yévoug évTa¢ Tod Kvpiov. 

3 The feeling of this is plainly expressed in the writings of this period. Barnabae 
Epist. c.9: 4 mepit opin, é@’ 9 meroiacl, KatHpyntai even for the Jews. The law of 
Moses had only a typieal meaning, particularly the laws regarding meats (c. 10) ; the 
Jews are not heirs of the promises, but the Christians (c. 13, 14); the Jewish Sabbaths are 
not agreeable to the Lord, but Sundays are (c. 15); in place of the destroyed Jewish 
temple appears a spiritual temple (c. 16) . is 

* Samuel, the Little, is said to-have composed it at the instigation of R. Gamaliel in 
Jafne, where the Sanhedrim met after the destruction of Jerusalem: (Talmud. Hierosol. et 
Babylon. in tract. Berachoth). Hence this Gamaliel can not be the elder Gamaliel, but his 
grandson. Cf. Vitringa de Synagog. vet. p. 1047. Respecting the name 0° J’), see 
Fulleri Miscellan. theologic. lib. ii.c.3. GE. Edzardus in not. ad Avoda Sara, p. 253, ss. 
Hieronym. Ep. 89, ad Augustin.: Usque hodie per totas Orientis synagogas inter Judaeos 
haeresis est, quae dicitur Minaeoram et a Pharisaeis nunc usque damnatur, quos vulgo 
Nazaraeos nuncupant, qui credunt in Christum, ‘filium Dei, natum de virgine Maria, et 
eum dicunt esse, qui sub Pontio Pilato passus est et resurrexit: in quem et nos credimus, 
sed dum volunt et Judaei esse et Christiani, nec Judaei sunt nec Christiani. 

5 Hegesippus in Eusebii H. B. iii. 32: And robtwy Tév aipetindv Karnyopodot tives 


CHAP. IIL—AGE OF JOHN. § 32. JEWISH CHRISTIANS. 99 


death of this man, there also arose an internal division among 
them. An opposition in the church, which had existed since 
the apostolic council at Jerusalem (Acts xv.), but had been hith- 
erto restrained, now broke out openly (Thebuthis) ;° and from 
the Nazaraeans,’ who remained steadfast in the apostolic faith, a 
party separated which held the Mosaic law to be binding in all 
cases, and Jesus to be the son of Joseph and Mary. ‘To them 
the name Ebionites was afterward for the most part applied— 
an appellation originally given by the Jews, in derision, to the 
Christians generally. A new party also arose among the Jew- 


Svpedvoc tod KAwrd, Oc bvtog ard AaGid Kai Xpiotiavotd. These heretics can only 
have been the adherents of the seven Jewish aipécecc, of which Hegesippus in Euseb. ii. 
23, and iv. 22, speaks. In the Chronographia of Jo. Malala (about 600—ed. Oxon. 1691, 
Svo, p- 356) is the following Relatio Tiberiani, or Relation of Tiberianus, a president of 
Palestine, communicated to Trajan, which, if it be genuine, must belong to this time: 
"Aréxauev Timapobuevoc Kal dwvetav Tove TadAtAaiovce, tove tov déypato¢c tav Aeyo- 
uévav Xpiotiaveyv, kata Ta tuétepa Ocoricowata’ Kal ob mabovtas éavtove unviovTec 
sic TO avatpeiobat. GOev ékoriaca TobTolg Tapatvav Kai aretAOv, wR ToAUgY adTod¢ 
unvoew poe brdpyovrac éx Tod mpoetpnuévov déyuatoc-. Kai arodtwxduevor od ravov- 
Tat. Osoricat por ody karagiaoare Ta TaploTdueva TH tyuetépw KpdTer TpoTALovyw. 
But Dodwell Dissertt. Cypr. diss. xi. § 23, and Tillemont, note 2, sur la persécut. de 
Trajan (in the Mémoires, ed. Bruxelles. 8, tom. ii. p. ii. p. 433, s.) have saficiently proved 
the spuriousness of this relation. 

6 Hegesippus, in Eusebius, iii. 32, says that the church enjoyed a proto peace from 
the death of Symeon, till the time of Trajan, and continued to be rapSévoc kafapa Kai 
&dtad0opoc. When he designates Thebuthis as the person who corrupted it (Euseb. iv. 
22), the connection does not render it necessary to understand the death of James as the 
point of time at which Thebuthis appeared; and we must therefore refer to the point of 
time which was before announced in obvious terms. Least of all can the opinion of 
Schliemann (Clementinen, S. 460) be justified, according to which, iv. 22 should be under- 
stood of the first beginnings of heretical views immediately after the death of James; iii. 
32 of the open breaking out of these heresies in the second century. The influence of a 
Thebuthis, because he was not a bishop, can only have been an open opposition. The 
first beginnings of heretical views among the Jewish Christians are to be found long 
before the death of James in the opponents of Paul. It is still more remarkable that 
Schleimann, p. 488, f. did not farther consider this point of time given by Hegesippus as 
that in which the sects arose, but places the separation of the Ebionites from the Naza- 
raeans in the year 136. Comp. my treatise on the Nazaraeans and Ebionites in Staudlin’s 
and Tzschirner’s Archiv. iv. ii. 320. Oé@ov6ic, according to Credner (Einl. in d. N. T. i. 
ii. 619), is not a person, but a collective idea, Chald. NNIVN NAW: opposition, 
reluctance, especially abhorrence of the stomach, nausea, hence vomitus, and then gene- 
rally filth, dirt, much the same as omAddec, Jude 12; oxidot kai uG@pot, 2 Peter ii. 13. 

7 Comp. Epiphanii Haer. 29. According to c. 7, they lived at the time of Epiphanius, 
toward the end of the fourth century, in Beroea, in Syria, in Coele-Syria, in Decapolis 
about Pella, and in Cocabe in Basanitis (now a village, Cocab, between Damascus and 
Nablus, nearer the latter. See Burckhardt’s Travels, German edition, edited by Gesenius, 
p- 591). ~ 

8 Origenes c. Cels. ii. init.: "EG@zwvaios yonuativovay of ard "lovdaiwy rév incoiv 
ag Xpearov wapadefduevor. V.61: Of ditrot EBiwvaio:, #rot éx mapbévov duodoyoivtes 
duoiwe quiv tov "Inooiv, 7 oby obtw yeyevvacOat, AW we Tod¢ Aotrode dvOpadrove. 
C. 65: "EBtwvaior dugdérepor. These two classes can not, as Schliemann supposes, be the 





100 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. 1.—A.D, 1-117. 


ish Christians akout the time of Trajan, in the countries lying 
eastward of the Dead Sea, by means of the diffusion of Es- 
senism, which united with the asceticism of the Essenes the pe- 
euliar opinion that the Spirit of God associated himself differ- 
ently with man, that, as the true prophet (Adam, Enoch, Noah, 
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus), he might announce the 
same truth, and restore it when obscured.? This party became 


Gnostic and the common Ebionites. He has himself shown, p. 207, that the former could 
not think of a birth of Christ by a virgin; Origen also calls them Elcesaites; see below, 
note 10. They are the Nazaraeans and Ebionites whom even Eusebius, H. E. iii. 27, 
groups together under the common appellation Ebionites, and at the same time obviously 
draws a distinction between them. The Ebionites, in a stricter sense, arose, according to 
Epiphanius Haer. xxx. 2, at Cocabe, and lived in his day (L. c. c. 18), in Nabathea, Paneas, 
Moabitis, and Cocabe. Respecting their adherents in Asia Minor, Rome, and Cyprus, of 
which he also speaks, see below, note 10. The derivation of the name from one Ebion, 
occurs first in Tertullian de Praescript. haeret.c. 33. In the Talmud. Hierosolymit. tract. — 
Joma, fol. 4, col. 3, appears no eb , as Lightfoot Parergon de excid. urbis, Opp. t. ii- 
p- 148, asserts, but a pax \. Comp. my treatise, p. 297, ff. 306, ff. 

- * Comp. Credner ‘On the Essenes and Ebionites, and a partial connection between 
them,” in Winer’s Zeitschrift f. wissensch. Theol. i. 211, 277. A. Schliemann’s die 
Clementinen nebst den Verwandten Schriften, und der Ebionitismus. Hamburg. 1844. 
According to Epiphanius, the "Econvoi (Haer. x.) lived in Samaria; onthe other hand, 
the ’Oconvoi (Haer. xix.) in Nabathea, Iturea, Moabitis, and Areilitis. Hence he takes 
the former as a Samaritan, the latter as a Jewish sect. Doubtless the names were dif- 
ferent merely by provincial pronunciation. The Essenes had withdrawn into these dis- 
tricts during the Jewish wars, in order to avoid the importanity of the Jews insisting on 
their carrying arms along with them. To the Ossenes, i. e. the Essenes living to the 
east of the Dead Sea, "HAfai, "HAgaioc attached himself in the reign of Trajan (Epiphan. 
Haer. xix. 1); and remains of the party which he modified were still existing in the time 
of Epiphanius as a Christian sect, under the name of Lapwaior, living in Nabathea and 
Moabitis (1. c. c. 2), also in Itarea. They were also called ’EAxecaior (Haer. lili. 1); and 
by Origen (in Euseb. H. E. vi.38) "EAxecaira:.» That Elxai also attached himself to the 
Ebionites, and a part of them followed him (Epiphan. Haer. xxx. 3). Epiphanius pro- 
fesses even to have read the prophetic book left by Elxai (Haer. xix. 1, 3); and he had 
heard besides of another writing, belonging to a brother of Elxai (Haer. liii. 3) called 
"leSéoc (Haer. xix.1). The name ’HAéai signified, according to his followers, divayc¢e 
Kexadvupévyn, from 7.1) and 93 (Haer. xix. 2). Modern writers have conjectured 
that this name first originated from the name of the party, and have declared the name 
Elcesaite equivalent to pwnd (from WTD, to deny), apostate. Baumgarten's 
Geschichte der Religionsparteien, pag. 271; from "IW ON » Nitzsch de Testamentis xii. 
patriarcharum, p. 5. But according to Scaliger, "EAfat ‘NOM ON 6 Eccaioc (Pe- 
tavii comm, ad Epiphan. Haer. xix.) According to Delitzsch (in Rudelbach’s and Gue- 
rike’s Zeitschrift, 1841, i. 43), the Elcesaites derived their name from the town Elcesi, in 
Galilee. I believe that ‘02 on is an appellation of the Spirit of God which made 
the true prophet, and which is also called in the Clementines, Hom. xvii. 16, dévauic 
doaxpoc. The Elcesaites praised this secret power as their teacher; hence arose the 
error of Epiphanius. If the title of the work which he possessed was ‘D3 Sn » and 
he heard of another ‘03 ‘1, the latter treating of the concealed deity as the former 
did of his concealed power, he may have made out of this two brothers. That this 
development proceeded from a confounding of the Essenes with Jewish Christians is 
shown by Credner, I. c. p. 312. When Schliemann denies this, because the similarity of 


‘ 


CHAP. IIL—AGE OF JOHN. § 33. EXTERNAL FORTUNES. 101 


known beyond their own country by means of the Clementines, 
toward the end of the second century ;'° and they were called 
sometimes Eilcesaites or Sampsaeans, sometimes Ebionites ; 
which latter was the general appellation of heretical 7 owish 
Christians. 


§ 33. 


EXTERNAL FORTUNES OF THE CHRISTIANS IN THE OTHER PROVINCES 


OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. 
{Comp. § 16.) 


After the destruction of Jerusalem, the heathen Christians 
were every where so numerous that it was no longer possible to 
mistake the distinction between Christianity and Judaism. 
Still, however, the Christians were looked upon as a Jewish’ 
sect.! All the prejudices entertained against the Jews, and the 
hatred of the heathen, which had been strengthened against them 
since their rebellion, were transferred in like manner to the 


the Essene creed to the Elcesaite can not be demonstrated, he forgets that the former is 
completely unknown to us, since it was guarded as a mysterious doctrine under the sane- 
tion of an oath, a thing which the Elcesaites had also to do (Credner’s Beitrage zur Einl. 
in d. bibl. Schriften, i. 369). When Schliemann, on the other hand, designates this ten- 
dency as Gnostic Ebionitism, no objection can be made to the assertion, if Gnosis be taken 
as synonymous with theosophy generally. In this sense the Essenes, too, were Gnostics. 
But that theosophy which is in historical possession of the name Gnosis was opposed by 
the Elcesaites, as Schliemann, p. 539, himself shows. When, moreover, this same writer - 
refers to the incorporation of the old oriental elements into Judaism, in order to explain 
Gnostic Ebionitism, and quotes Neander, he lays claim to the same source for it as that 
from which Neander derives Essenism (see above § 15, note 9). -Regarding the name of 
the party, I do not believe with Credner (Beitrage, 8. 367) that Ossenes, Sampsaeans, 
and Elcesaites were the names of the three highest classes of the Essenes. The 
Ossenes were the Essenes east of the Dead Sea, who by degrees became Christians. 
These Essene Christians were styled Elcesaites from the ‘DD on, which they con- 
fessed; Sampsaeans (Epiphan. Haer. lili. 2: Laywator épunvedovrac ‘HAraxot from 
wou ) probably because they turned while praying toward the rising sun, as did the 
Essenes. The name Ebionites which was given to them, if we may rely on the authority 
of Epiphanius, is with him the general appellation for all heretical Jewish Christians, and 
is therefore least of all adapted for a strict description. 4 

10 See below § 58. From this time onward the party appears to have obtained 
adherents in Asia Minor, Rome, and Cyprus. Hence Origen, in Euseb. H. E. vi. 38, dis- 
tinguishes the aipeaiy rév ‘EAxecaitav as veworti éxaviorapévgyv. On the other hand, it 
is very doubtful whether the doctrine of this party be represented in its pure unadulterated 
form in the Clementines. 

? Hence in Tacitus (Hist. y. 5), while describing the Jews, traits appear which are man- 
ifestly borrowed from the Christians : Animas proelio aut suppliciis peremptorum acternas 
putant. Hine generandi amor et moriendi contemptus. 


BY 


102 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 1-117. 


Christians. At the same time Christianity appeared far more 
dangerous than Judaism, inasmuch as it was not confined, like 
it, to one people, but propagated itself every where with im- 
mense. rapidity. Yet the persecutions which the Christians 
had to suffer from individual emperors were only partial. Ves- 
\pasian (70-79) did not at all persecute the Christians as such, 
although they may have been harassed under his reign and that 
‘of Titus his successor (79-81) by the demand of the tax im- 
posed on every Jew. ‘This was still more the case under Do- 
mitian (81—96),* who eaused some Christians to be put to death 
Seven in Rome,‘ and search to be made in Palestine for the pos- 
terity of David.’ Under Nerva (96-98), all these provocations 
ceased.° At the time of Trajan (98-117), appear the first 
“traces of that popular rage against them to which, m succeeding 
times, so many must frequently have fallen sacrifices (Eusebius 
iii. 32). Pliny the younger, governor of Bithynia, where the 


2 Notions of this time concerning the Christians : Tacit. Annal. xv. 44: Quos per flagitia 
invisos, vulgus Christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis ejus Christus, Tiberio imperitante, 
per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat. Repressaque in praesens 
exitiabilis superstitio rursus erumpebat non modo per Judaeam originem ejus mali, sed 
per Urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. 
Odio humani generis convicti sunt. Sueton. in Nerone, c. 16: Christiani, genus hominum 
superstitionis novae ac maleficae. 

3 The didpayuoc now to be paid to Jupiter Capitolinus. Joseph. de B. J. vii. 6, 6. 
Sueton. in Domitiano, c. 12: Praeter caeteros Judaicus fiscus acerbissime actus est: ad 
quem deferebantur, qui vel improfessi Judaicam viverent vitam, vel dissimulata origine 
imposita genti tributa non pependissent. Interfuisse me adolescentulam memini, quum 
a procuratore frequentissimoque consilio inspiceretur nonagenarius senex, an circumsectus 
esset. Petri Zornii historia fisci Judaici sub imperio vett. Roman. Alton. 1734. 

* Xiphilini epitome Dionis Cass. Ixvii. 14: Tév $4B10ov Kdjyerta traretovra, Kaimep 
dvepiov ovta, Kai yuvaixa Kal aitiy ovyyeri éavtot AaBiav AopuitiAdav éxovra 
Katéogagev 6 Aouitiavoc: éxnvéxOn O02 tudoty EyxAnua GBedrntoc- b¢ He Kai GAAot éc 
Ta TOY "lovdaiwy 70q eoxéAZovTec 70201 KatedixdcOnoav: Kai of wév &xéBavor, ol dé 
tov yobv oboiOv éotepyOncarv. 4 db? AouitiiAa ixcpwpicOn pévov eic¢ Tavdarépecav. 
(GGeo¢, i. e., 6 uq GeBduevoc Tove Beovc¢). Euseb. Chron. lib. ii. ad Olymp. 218: IoAAoi dé 
Xpioriavey éuapripycay kata Aopetiavorv, &¢ 6 Bpétrioc (Hieron. Brutius. Chron. pasch. 
5 Bpotrrioc) iaropéi, év oi¢ kai Pavia Aopetinna tEadeAGy KAqmevtoc PAaviov bxarixod, 
O¢ YpLoTiavy cic vaoov Llovtiay gvyadeveTar: aitéc Te KAjune bxép Xprorod dvaipeirar. 
Cf. Ejusd. Hist. Eccl. iii. c. 18, § 2. According to Hieronymi Epist. 86 (al. 27) ad Eusto- 
chium Virg. epitaphium Paulae matris, Paula had seen on the Island Pontia the little 
cells in quibus illa (Flavia Domitilla) longum martyrium duxerat. 

5 As Vespasian had already done (Hegesipp. ap. Euseb. iii. 12), Hegesippus, in Euseb. 
iii. 20, relates how the grandchildren of Judas, the brother of Christ, were brought before 
Domitian. 

© Xiphilini epit. Ditnis, Ixvili. 1: ‘O Nepodac 7 Tove Te Kplvopévoue é’ doeGeia ddjKe, Kat 
Tove gevyovTac Karhyaye : Toig 62 ‘Oy GAXowe ob?’ GceBeiac, ob? .lovdaixod Biov Karat- 
tidobai tivag cvveyopyce. A coin’of the senate: Fisci Judaici calumnia sublata. §. 
Eckhel Doctrina nummor. veter. vi. p. 405. 


CHAP. III—AGE OF JOHN. §33. EXTERNAL FORTUNES. 103 


number of Christians had unusually increased, applied against 
them the general laws, which had been lately revived by Trajan, 
against forbidden societies (hetaeriae) which were really dan- 
gerous (cf. Plin. Epist. x. 42, 43; 110 or 111 ap). He 
adopted that course because no Soceial laws had been enacted 
with regard to them. His account of the Christians, addressed 
to Trajan, which is of the highest importance toward under- 
standing their condition at that period, led to the first legal 
enactment relative to the course which should be adopted,’ to 


7 Plinii lib. x. Epist. 96 (al. 97): C. Plinius Trajano. Solemne est mihi, Domine, omnia, 
de quibus dubito, ad Te referre. Quis enim potest melius vel cunctationem meam regere, 
vel ignorantiam instruere? Cognitionibus de Christianis interfui nunquam: ideo nescio, 
quid et quatenus aut puniri soleat, aut quaeri. Nec mediocriter haesitavi, sitne aliquod 
discrimen aetatum, an quamlibet teneri nihil a robustioribus differant: deturne poeni- 
tentiae venia, an ei, qui omnino Christianus fuit, desisse non prosif: nomen ipsum, si 
flagitiis careat, ati flagitia cohaerentia nomini puniantur. Interim in iis, qui ad me tan- 
quam Christiani deferebantur, hunc sum secutus modum. Interrogavi ipsos, an essent 
Christiani: confitentes iterum ac tertie interrogavi, supplicium minatus: perseverantes 
duci jussi. Neque enim dubitabam, qualecunque esset quod faterentur, pertinaciam certe 
et inflexibilem obstinationem debere puniri. Fuerunt alii similis amentiae: quos, quia 
cives Romani erant, annotavi in urbem remittendos. Mox ipso tractatu, ut fieri solet, 
diffandente, se crimine, plures species inciderunt. Propositus est libellus sine auctore, 
multorum nomina continens, qui negarent, esse se Christianos aut fuisse. Cum praeeunte 
me Deos appellarent, et imagini Tuae, quam propter hoc jusseram cum simulacris numinum 
afferri, thure ac vino supplicarent, praeterea maledicerent Christo, quorum nihil cogi posse 
dicuntur, qui sunt revera Christiani, dimittendos esse putavi. Alii ab indice nominati, 
esse se Christianos dixerunt, et mox negaverunt: fuisse quidem, sed desisse, quidam ante 
triennium, quidam ante plures annos, non nemo etiam ante viginti quoque. Omnes et 
imaginem Tuam, Deorumque simulacra venerati sunt: ii et Christo maledixerunt. Af 
firmabant autem, hanc fuisse sammam vel culpae suae, vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato 
die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere secum invicem: seque 
sacramento, non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria 
committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati abnegarent; quibus peractis 
morem sibi discedendi fuisse, rursusque coéundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen 
et innoxium (non singularem maleficae superstitionis); quod ipsum facere desisse post 
edictum meum, quo secundum mandata Tua’ hetaerias esse vetueram. Quo magis 
necessarium credidi, ex duabus ancillis, quae ministrae dicebantur, quid esset veri, et per 
tormenta quaerere. Sed nihil aliud inveni, quam superstitionem pravam et immodicam: 
ideoque dilata cognitione ad consulendum Te decurri. Visa est enim mihi res digna 
consultatione, maxime propter periclitantium numerum. Multi enim omnis aetatis, omnis 
ordinis, utriusque sexus etiam, vocantur in periculum, et vocabuntur. Neque enim 
civitates tantum, sed vicos etiam atque agros superstitionis istius contagio pervagata est. 
Quae videtur sisti et corrigi posse. Certe’ satis constat, prope jam desolata templa 
coepisse celebrari, et sacra solemnia diu intermissa repeti, pastumque venire victimarum, 
cujus adhuc rarissimus emtor inveniebatar.’ Ex quo facile est opinari, quae turba hominam 
emendari possit, si sit poenitentiae locus. 

Ibid. Ep. 97 (al. 98): Trajanus Plinio. Actam, quem debuisti, mi Secunde, in executi- 
endis causis eorum, qui Christiani ad te delati fuerant, secutus es. Neque enim in univer- 
sum aliquid, quod quasi certam formam habeat constitui potest. Conquirendi non sunt: 
si deferantur et arguantur, puniendi sunt, ita tamen, ut qui negaverit se Christianum esse, 
idque re ipsa manifestum fecerit, i. e., supplicando Diis nostris, quamvis suspectas in 


104 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D. 1-117. 


which, among others, Ignatius also, bishop of Antioch (116), fell 
a sacrifice.® . 


§ 34. 
REGULATIONS OF THE CHURCH. 


Of the apostles we find at this time only Philip in Hierapolis 
(Polycrates ap. Euseb. H. E. iii. 31 and v. 24) and John* in 


praeteritum, veniam ex poenitentia impetret. Sine auctore vero propositi libelli in nullo 
crimine locum habere debent ; nam et pessimi exempli, nec nostri seculiest. (This text 
is after the edition of J. C. Orelli, prefixed to the Ziirich Lectionscataloge. Mich. 1838.) 
Even Tertullian (Apologet. c. 2) and Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 33) mention these letters. 
Against the doubts of Gibbon, Semler, and Corodi, concerning their genuineness, see H. 
C. Haversaat’s Vertheidigung der Plinischen Briefe tiber die Christen. Gdttingen. 1788. 
8, and Gierig, in his edition of Plinii Epist. tom. ii. (Lips. 1802), p. 498, ss. Against Dr. J. 
Held prolegomena ad librum epistt. quas mutuo sibi scripsisse Plinium jun. et Trajanum 
Caes. viri docti credunt (Schweidnitz. 1835, 4), who looks upon the entire tenth book asa 
forgery, see the Munich gel. Anz. Sept. 1836. No. 186. Commentaries on these epistles 
are in: Franc. Balduini comm. ad edicta veterum principum Rom. de Christianis. Basil. 
s. a. (and appended to his Constantinus Magnus, Lips. 1727), p. 26-69. Just. Henn. 
Boehmeri xii. dissertatt. juris eccles. ant. ad Plin. sec. et Tertullianum. ed. 2. Halae. 
1729. Gierig, 1. c. 

8 Euseb. H. E. iii. 36. Trajan’s conduct toward Ignatius is not inexplicable, as Baur 
(Ursprang des Episcopats, S. 149) supposes, but was well considered. He sent him to be 
executed at Rome, partly for the sake of not provoking the fanaticism of the Christians at 
Antioch, by looking upon his martyrdom; partly because he thought that the tedious 
hardships endured on the way to the place of execution might effect a change of mind, for 
the apostasy of this head of the Christians must have been of the greatest consequence; 
partly for the purpose of terrifying the Christians on the way when they saw the sufferer. 
Among the various texts of the Acta martyrii Ign., that of the old Latin version is the 
most ancient (Cotelerii Patr. apost. ii. 171); the Greek is (1. c. p. 161) a revision, which 
first proceeded, perhaps, from Simeon Metaphrastes. Both may also be found in Ruinart 
Acta mart. selecta. 

1 John’s exile to Patmos, an inference from Apoc. is 9. Clemens Alex. quis dives 
salvetur, c. 42. Cf. Tertull. de Praescr. haer. 36: Apostolus Johannes posteaquam in oleum 
igneum demersus nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur. That he drank off a poison-cup 
without injury (as Justus Barsabas after Papias ap. Euseb. iii. 39, comp. Mark xvi. 18) is 
first related by Augustin in Soliloquiis. Cf. Fabricii Cod. apocr. N. T. ii. 576. Thilo acta 
Thomae, in the notitia uber. p. 73. Tradition gave rise to the fabrication of the story con- 
cerning the cup and the baptism, that Matth. xx. 23 might be fulfilled. His death was 
under Trajan, (Iren. ii. 29, iii. 3), according to Euseb. Chron. and Hieron. Catal. c. 9, in the 
third year of Trajan, 100 a.p. Traditions growing out of John xxi. 22: the one that John 
placed himself alive in the grave, and is only sleeping in it, Fabric. 1. c. p. 588, Thilo, 1. c. 
Ixxiv.; the other, that he was trauslated like Enoch and Elias, Pseudo-Hippolytus de con- _ 
summat. mundi (in Hippol. opp. ed. Fabricius, append. p. 14) and Ephraemius Antioch. 
abont 526 (in Photii bibl. cod. 229, ed. Rothomag. p. 798, ss.)—Surnames: virgo, rapOévoc 
(so ran at first the subscription to the first and second epistles of John: ézuicr. lwavy. rob 
mapGévov. The Latins, afterward misunderstanding it, made out of it Epistolam ad 
Parthos), after the council of Nice especially @eoAéyoc.—Credner’s Einl. in d. N. T-i.i. 217, 


CHAP. UI—AGE OF JOHN. §34. REGULATIONS OF THE CHURCH. 105 


Ephesus. While the latter superintended the churches of Asia 
Minor, and laid the foundation of a peculiar development of doc- 
trine, by instructing able disciples and by his writings, the 
churches of other countries lost that superintendence which they 
had hitherto enjoyed, by the death of the apostles and their im- 
mediate disciples. The need of unity required something to / 
compensate for this loss; it was presented in the episcopate,” 


2 Comp. § 30, not. 1.. Hilarius Diaconus (usually called Ambrosiaster), about 380, in 
comment. ad 1 Tim. iii. 10: Episcopi et presbyteri una ordinatio est. Uterque enim 
sacerdos est; sed. episcopus primus est; ut omnis episcopus presbyter sit, non tamen 
omnis presbyter episcopus : hic enim episcopus est, qui inter presbyteros primus est. The 
traces of this relation were longest preserved in Alexandria. Hieronym. Epist. 101 (al. 
85) ad Evangelum (in the old editions falsely styled ad Evagrium, also in Gratianus dist. 
xcili. c. 24): Apostolus perspicue docet eosdem esse presbyteros, quos episcopos.—Quaeris 
auctoritatem? Audi testimonium. Then Phil. i. 1, Acts xx. 28, &c., are cited. Quod 
autem postea unus electus est, qui caeteris praeponeretur, in schismatis remedium factum 
est, ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi ecclesiam rumperet. Nam et Alexandriae a 
Marco evangelista usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium episcopos (about 240 a.D.). presbyteri 
semper unum ex se selectum, in excelsiori gradu collocatum, episcopum nominabant. 
Quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat, aut diaconi eligant de se, quem industrium 
noverint, et archidiaconum vocent (comp. on this letter Chr. Waechtler, acta eruditoruam 
ann. 1717, p. 484, ss. 524, ss. With a Catholic bias P. Molkenbuhr, and after him Binterim 
Denkwirdigk.»d. christkath. Kirche, ii. i. 78, ff, have pronounced the letter spurious). 
Hilarius Diac. comm. ad Ephes. iv. 11: Primum presbyteri episcopi appellabantur, ut uno 
recedente sequens ei succederet. Denique apud Aegyptum presbyteri consignant, si 
praesens non sit episcopus. Sed quia coeperunt sequentes presbyteri indigni inveniri ad 
primatus tenendos, immutata est ratio, prospiciente concilio, ut non ordo, sed meritum 
crearet episcopum, multorum sacerdotum judicio constitutum, ne indignus temere usurp- 
aret, et esset multis scandalum.—Pseudo-Augustini (probably also Hilarii Diaconi) Quaes- 
tiones vet. et nov. testamenti (in the appendix tom. iii. p. ii. of the Benedictine edition), 
quaest. 101: Presbyterum autem intelligi episcopum probat Paulus apostolus, quando 
Timotheum, quem ordinavit presbyterum, instruit, qualem debeat creare episcopum (1 
Tim. iii. 1). Quid est enim episcopus, nisi primus presbyter, hoc est summus sacerdos ? 
Nam in Alexandria et per totam Aegyptum, si desit episcopus, consecrat [Ms. Oplb. con- 
signat] presbyter. In like manner, Eutychius (Said Ibn Batrik about 930) patriarcha 
Alex. in Ecclesiae suae origg. (ed. Joh. Selden p. 29): Constituit Marcus evangelista xii. 
presbyteros, qui nempe manerent cum patriarcha, adeo ut cum vacaret patriarchatus, 
eligerent unum e xii. presbyteris, cujus capiti reliqui xi. manus imponerent, eique bene- 
dicerent, et patriarcham eum crearent (comp. 1 Tim. iv. 14).—Neque desiit Alexandriae 
institutum hoc de presbyteris, ut scilicet patviarchas crearent ex presbyteris duodecim, 
usque ad tempora Alexandri patriarchae Alexandrini, qui fuit ex numero illo cecxviii. Is 
autem vetuit, ne deinceps patriarcham presbyteri crearent. Et decrevit, ut mortuo patri- 
archa convenirent episcopi, qui patriarcham ordinarent. In this account the part, at least, 
which contradicts the later discipline has certainly not been interpolated in later times 
(but still Gulielmus Autissiodorensis, about 1206, Comm. ad sent. l. iv. qu. 1, de sacram. ord. 
‘sub finem, says: Quod si non essent in mundo nisi tres simplicis sacerdotes, oporteret 
quod aliquis illorum consecraret alium in episcopum et alium in archiepiscopum), and so 
far it has a historical value. Attempts to remove from the passage what is offensive to 
preconceived opinions have been made by Morin, Pearson, Le Quien, Renaudot, Petavius, 
especially by Abrah. Echellensis Eutychius patriarcha Alex. vindicatus et suis restitutus 
orientalibus, s. responsio ad Jo. Seldeni origines, &c. Romae. 1661. 4. Mamachii Origg. 
et antiquitt. Christian. tom. iv. p. 503, ss. See on the contrary sides, J. F. Rehkopf Vitae 


106 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 1-117. 


which had been adumbrated for a considerable time in the 
mepecharch of Jerusalem, by the position of James and his 
successors.’ This example was: imitated especially i in the neigh- 
boring churches, at Antioch in particular.‘ It is true, that in 
the more remote churches the chief presbyters, as presidents of 
the college of presbyters, occupied a similar position ; but they” 
had not been as yet elevated above the other presbyters by inde- 
pendent privileges peculiar to themselves.’ Ignatius, throug 


patriarcharum Alexandrinorum saec. i. et ii. Specim. iii. Lips. 1759. 4. p. 28, s-——-On the 
accounts of Jerome and Hilary rests the usual Protestant view of the origin of episcopacy, 
which is developed among the moderns (for the older literature see § 30, note 1), with 
different modifications by Zeigler Gesch. d. Kirchl. Verfassungsformen, p. 7. Gabler de 
Episcopis primae eccl. Christ. eorumque origine diss. Jenae. 1805. 4to. Ne&ander K. G. 
i. i. 324. Episcopacy is said to have been established as a point of union between the 
éxxAnoia Kav’ olxov, which may have stood independently of each other in towns (see 
§ 30, note 6), by J. F. Gruner de Origine episcoporum exerc. Halae. 1764. 4to. Miinscher 
Dogmengeschichte, ii. 376, and especially by.N. Chr. Kist. tiber den Ursprung der bisch. 
Gewalt (in Ilgen’s Zeitschrift fiir d. hist. Theol. ii. ii. 47). See on the other side Rothe 
die Anfange d. christl. Kirche and ihrer Verfassung, i. 194. According to Rothe (p. 392) 
“episcopacy was introduced as an instrument of Christian unity by the still remaining 
apostles at the council of Jerusalem, at which they chose Symeon bishop of Jerusalem 
(Euseb. iii. 11). But when the memory of this synod is preserved how can its most 
important transaction be forgotten? -According to Baur (iiber d. Ursprang des Episko- 
pats. Tiibingen. 1838. 8), the heresies which first appeared in full power under the 
Antonines, which brought the idea of the Catholic church into a clear point of view, gave 
rise to the outward manifestation of this idea by establishing the episcopate, which was 
looked upon as a matter of pressing necessity. The Petrine and Pauline parties were 
united on this point; and in the endeavor to realize the measure, the influence of the 
Clementines, which proceeded from the Petrine party, as well as the Acts of the Apostles, 
the pastoral epistles, and the later Ignatian letters, which now proceeded from the Pauline 
party, were working in the one direction. 

3 See above, § 26, note 4. § 32, note 2. 

* Comp. the epistles of Ignatius, Rothe Anfange d. christl. Kirche, i. 467. It is worthy 
of notice, that the bishop is always here represented as Christ’s representative; the 
presbyters as the representatives of the apostles (ad Trallianos c.2: T@ éxioxérw tro- 
taoceobe we *Inood Xpioth.—irordocecbe Kal TH mpecButepiv, G¢ Toi¢ GrooréAotc 
"Inootd Xpiorod, cf. c. 3, ad Magnes. c. 6, ad Smyrn. c. 8); whereas, according to the 
view which soon after prevailed in the church, the bishops are the successors and repre- 
sentatives of the apostles. The Ignatian apprehension of this relation appears to have 
had its origin in Jerusalem, where James, the brother of Jesus, might be reckoned the 
representative of the latter; and in like manner, the other relatives of Jesus who were 
subsequently chosen presidents by the churches in Palestine, see § 52, note 2. 

5 Clemens Rom. in Epist. i. ad Corinth, c. 42, names only érioxorot kai didkovot, and 
finds these two. classes of the clergy prophetically announced as early as Isaiah lx. 17. 
Hermae Pastor, i. vis. ii. 4: Seniores, qui praesunt ecclesiae. Vis. iii. 5: Apostoli, et 
episcopi, et doctores, et ministri. Here the bishops are the seniores, the doctores, the 
teaching presbyters and evangelists, and not as Rothe, p. 408, supposes, the presbyters 
. merely. Polycarp. ad Philipp. c. 5, admonishes, drotdocecOat toic mpeoBuTépoicg Kat 
dlakdvoie, & TH Oe@ kal Xptor@. Polycarp designates himself as president among the 
presbyters in the beginning of the epistle: IloAtxaprog xai of civ ait mpeoBbrepar TR 
éxxanoig tod Oeod TH mapotKobon Pidinmore kK. T. A. 


CHAP. IT1L—AGE OF JOHN. §34. REGULATIONS OF THH CHURCH. 107 


the instrumentality of his epistles, recommended episcopacy uni- 
versally, as a condition of unity, and that, too, in the most 
urgent terms;°® and thus the first presbyters_soon generally 
moved up to the higher step as érioxozor,’ although they retained 
besides, for a long time, the title mpeoBitepor.® When the at- 
tempt was made, at a later period, to carry up the series of 


~ 


bishops, as the successors of the apostles, to the apostles them- 


selves, the most distinguished presbyters of the earlier times 
were reckoned as the first bishops.? In this way we explain 
the different accounts of the order of the first Romish bishops.'® 
The universal right to teach in the public assemblies having 
oceasioned-improprieties very early (James iii. 1), it seems to 
have been already in this periodso limited by custom, that usually 


6 Ignatius recommends submission to the episcopal authority, as something new, or at 
least not yet sufficiently settled, see Kist in Ilgen’s Zeitschrift, ii. ii. 68. In his Epist. ad 
Polycarpum he addresses the latter as éxicxorov different from the mpeoBurépote (c. 6), 
and exhorts him to the exercise of his episcopal rights and duties; although Polycarp 
himself, in his epistle written not long afterward, designates himself merely as the prin- 
cipal presbyter (see note 5). Thus Ignatius represents the first presbyters of the churches 
as bishops, and wishes to induce them to appropriate the idea of the episcopate. Thus he 
addresses Onesimus as bishop of Ephesus (Ep. ad Ephes. c. 1), Polybius as bishop of 
Tralles (ad Trall. c. 12), Dumas as bishop of Magnesia (ad Magnes. c. 2), and an unknown 
person as ‘bishop of Philadelphia (ad. Philadelph. ec. 1). 

7 The xpoeoréc, who, in Justini Apol. maj. c. 65, is supposed to be in all churches, is 
doubtless the bishop. 

8 Because they always possessed as yet the character of the presiding presbyter. 
Thus the bishops are included among the zpec(Guréporc in Irenaeus, iii. 2, 2 (successiones 
presbyterorum ; on the other hand, iii. 3, 1 and 2, successiones episcoporum); iv. 26, 2, 3, 5. 
vy. 20, 2:° In Irenaei Epist. ad Victorem ap. Euseb. v. 24, the earlier bishops are called o/ 
moecBbrepot, of mpootdvtec TH¢ éxxAnoiac. Tertullianus in Apologet. c. 39, calls bishops 
and presbyters together, seniores. 

® In Alexandria: (Marcus) Annianus, Abilius, Kerdon (Euseb. ii, 24, iti. 14, 21). In 
Antioch : Evodius, Ignatius, Heros (Euseb. iii. 22, 36). 

10 Comp. § 27; note 6. First of all, Irenaeus adv. Haer. iii. 3, followed by Eudobnin iii. 
2, 13, 14, 31, gives it thus: Linus (2 Tim. iv. 217) +80, Anencletus, Anacletus or Cletus 
+92, Clemens (Philipp. iv. 37) t 102, Evarestus +110. According to the Clementines, on the 
contrary, Clement, the constant attendant of Peter, was consecrated by that apostle bishop 
of Rome. This opinion is followed by Tertullian de Praescr. c. 32. Accordingly, the 
Apostol. constitutt. vii. 46, give the following order: Linus nominated by Paul, Clement by 
Peter, &c. In like manner, Optatus Milev. de schism. Donatist. ii. 2. Augustini Ep. 53, 
ad Generosum. On the other hand, Epiphanius, xxvii. 6, represents Clement as ordained 
bishop by Peter, but not as having entered on his office till after the death of Linus and 
_ Anacletus. Rufinus praef. in‘ Recognit. says that Linus and Cletus were bishops in the 
lifetime of Peter; and that after the death of the latter, Peter appointed Clement, shortly 
‘before his own death. According to Jerome (Catal. c. 15), most of the Latins looked upon 
‘Clement as the immediate successor of Peter. The modern Romish church assumes the 
following order: Peter, Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus, Evarestus. Comp. Jo. Pear- 
sonii and Henr. Dodwelli Diss. de successione primoram Romae episcoporum, in Pearsonij 
opp. posthum. Lond. 1688. 4. J. Ph. Baraterii Disquisitio chronol. de succegsione anti. 

quissima episcoporum Rom. Ultraj. 1740. 4. 


108 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 1-117. 


only the officers of the congregation spoke in publie, although it was 
not formally abolished." 


§ 35. 


APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 


SS. Patrum, qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt, opera ed. J. B. Cotelerius. Paris. 1672 
recud. curavit J. Clericus, ed. 2. Amst. 1724. 2 voll. fol. SS. Patrum apostolic. opera 
genuina ed. Rich. Russel. Lond. 1746. 2 voll. 8. S. Clementis Rom., 8. Ignatii, 8. 
Polycarpi, patrum apostt., quae supersunt. Accedunt §. Ignatii et S. Polycarpi martyria. 
Ad fidem codd. rec., adnotationibus illustravit, indicibus instruxit Guil. Jacobson. 2 tomi. 
Oxon. 1838. ed. 2.1840. 8. Patrum apostt. opera (genuina). Textum recognovit, brevi 
adnotatione instruxit, et in usum praell. acadd. ed. C.J. Hefele. Tubingae. 1839. ed. 
2.1843. 


\ Apostolic fathers is a title given to those who were the im- 
mediate and genuine disciples of the apostles, and in a stricter 
sense, to such of them as have left works behind. To the school 
of Paul belong Barnabas (comp. § 26)' Clement of Rome (comp. 


11 Dr. K. F. W. Paniel’s pragm. Gesch. 4. christl. Beredsamkeit u. d. Homiletik. Bd. 
1, Abth.1. Leipzig. 1839. p. 75. 

1 The epistle of Bagnabas, which was regarded even ‘on Clement of Alexandria, Origen, 
and Jerome, as genuine, remained entirely unknown till, after Ussher’s edition had been 
burned in the printing-office at Oxford, 1643, it was first published by Hugo Menardus, 
Paris, 1645, 4to, and with a corrected text by Iss. Vossius appended to the epistles of 
Ignatius. Amstel. 1646. 4to. For a long time the predominant opinion was against its 
authenticity, see especially Tentzel ad Hieron. Catal. cap. 6, in Fabricii Bibl. eccles. p. 38, 
ss. Yet Isaac Vossius, Cave, Grynaeus, Gallandius, declared it genuine. Since J. E. 
Chr. Schmidt K. G. 437, Miinscher Dégmengesch. i. 111, Rosenmiiller Hist. interpret. libb. 
sacr. i. 42, decided in its favor, this became almost the prevailing opinion, and has been 
defended with ingenuity, particularly by D. E. Henke de epistolae quae Barnabae trib- 
uitur authentia, Jenae. 1827. 8vo; Bleek Brief a. d. Hebrier, i. 416; and J. Chr. Rordam 
Comm. de authentia epist. Barnabae. Partic. I. Hafn. 1828. 8vo. Gu. H. Haverkorn von 
Rysewyk Diss. de Barnaba, Arnhemiae. 1835. 8vo, has also declared in favor of the genu- 
ineness. Recently, however, certain important voices have been raised again in opposi- 
tion to the epistle, as Neander (K. G. i. ii, 1133), Twesten (Dogmatik, i. 104), Ullmann 
(theol. Studien u. Kritiken, i. ii. 382), and Hug (Zeitschrift fiir d. Geistlichkeit d. Erzbisth. 
Frieburg. ii. 132, ff; iii. 208, ff.). Dan. Schenkel (iiber d. Brief d. Barn. in d. theol. Stud. 
u. Kritik. 1837, iii. 652) believes that § 1-6, 13, 14, 17, constitute the genuine original letter, 
and that § 7-12, 15, 16, were afterward inserted by a therapeutic Jewish Christian. On 
the other hand, C. J. Hefele, in the Tiibing. theol. Quartalschr. 1839, i. 50, affirms the 
integrity of the epistle, but denies the authenticity of it in the work entitled, “das Send- 
schreiben des Apostels Barnabas aufs neue untersucht, ibersetzt und erklart, Tiibingen. 
1840. 8."—The chief ground urged against the genuineness, that the absurd mystical 
mode of interpretation could not have proceeded from a companion of the apostle Paul, 
seems to me untenable. That Barnabas was not a man of spiritual consequence, is clear 
even from the Acts of the Apostles. There he is at first the more prominent by virtue 
of his apostolic commission, in company with Paul (Acts xi. 22; xii. 2, Barnabas and 
Baul), but he soon falls entirely into the background behind Paul, after a freer sphere of 


CHAP. IIL—AGE OF JOHN. §35,.APOSTOLIC FATHERS, 109 


§ 34, note 10),?:to whom, in later times, many writings were 
falsely ascribed,* and Hermas, whose work (6 rovujy)* inculeates 
moral precepts in visions and parables, in order to promote the 


activity has commenced (xiii. 13, 43, Paul and Barnabas). The epistle was written soon 
after the destruction of Jerusalem, according to chapters iv. and xvi.; and the ancient 
testimony of Clement, that Barnabas was the author, can not be derived from a partiality 
of the Alexandrian in favor of a production of kindred spirit, because the millennarianism 
of the letter (c. 15) could not have pleased the Alexandrian, and besides, all the inter- 
pretations do not agree with Clement, who in his Paedag. ii. p. 221 refutes one of them, 
and in his Stromata, ii. p. 464 prefers another view of Psalm i. 1 to that given in the epistle 
before us. 

2 His epistle to the Corinthians, which was usually read in the religious assemblies at 
Corinth, as early as the second century (Dionys. Corinth. in Euseb. H. E. iv. 23, 6. Iren. 
iii. 3), is called in question without reason by Semler (histor. Einleit. za Baumgarten’s 
Unters. theol. Streitigkeiten. Bd. 2. S. 16) and Ammon (Leben Jesu, i. 33), but it has 
been looked upon as interpolated, by H. Bignon, Ed. Bernard, H. Burton, Jo. Clericus 
(see Patrum apost. Cotelerii ed. Clerici, ii. p. 133, 478, 482, and in the notes to the letter), 
Ittig, Mosheim, and Neander. It seems to belong to the end of the first century. In 
opposition to Schenkel (theol. Studien und Krit. 1841, i. 65), who places it between 64 
and 70, see Schliemann’s Clementinen, p. 409. The so-called second epistle, a mere frag- 
ment, is spurious (Euseb. iii. 38). These two letters, preserved only in the Cod. Alexand., 
were first published by Patricius Junius, Oxon. 1633. 4to, and his incorrect text has been 
repeated in most editions. After a careful comparison of the MS., a more correct text 
was given first of all by Henr. Wotton, Cantabr. 1718. 

3 Namely, t. Two letters in the Syriac language, see below § 73, note 5. 2. Constitu- 
tiones and Canones apostolorum, see § 67, note 3. 3. Recognitiones Clementis and 
Clementina, see § 58. 

* Partly an imitation of the 4th book of Ezra (see § 31, note 3, comp. Jachmann, p. 63), 
it professes to be a writing of the Hermas mentioned in Romans xvi. 14 (lib. i. vis. ii. c. 
4), and is quoted as scripture even by Irenaeus, iv. 3. When the opposition to Montanism 
began in the west toward the close of the second century (see below § 59), it lost its repu- 
tation there with those who were inclined to Montanist views, because it allowed a re- 
pentance once after baptism, and with the opponents of Montanism it fell into disrepute, 
on account of its apocalyptic form (Tertull. de Pudic. c. 10: Cederem tibi, si scriptura 
pastoris, quae sola moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi, si non ab omni 
concilio ecclesiarum, etiam vestrarum, inter apocrypha ef falsa judicaretur. C. 2: Ille 
apocryphus pastor moechorum), and now it is declared by the Fragmentum de canone in 
-Muratorii Antiquitt. Ital. iii. 853: Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe 
Roma Hermas conscripsit, sedente cathedra urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopo, fratre 
ejus. This assumption, which Irenaeus can not have known, became afterward the usual 
one in the west. On the contrary, the work remained in repute among the Alexandrians, 
and is cited by Clement of Alex. and Origen frequently, by Athanasius several times as 
an authority (see Jachmann, p. 37). Origenes in Ep. ad Rom. comm. lib. x. c. 31: Puto 
tamen, quod Hermas, iste (Rom. xvi. 15) sit scriptor libelli istius, qui Pastor appellatur, 
quae scriptura valde mihi utilis videtur, et, ut puto, divinitus inspirata. But when in later . 
‘times the Arians appealed to it (Athanasii Epist. ad Afros in Opp. i. ii. 895) its reputation 
sank in the Greek church also. Hieronymus in Catal. c. 10: Herman, cujus apostolus_ 
Paulus ad Romanos scribens meminit—asserunt auctorum esse libri, qui appellatur Pas- 
tor, et apud quasdam Graeciae ecclesias etiam publice legitur. Revera utilis liber, mul- 
tique de eo scriptorum veterum usurpavere testimonia, sed apud Latinos paene ignotus 
est. Liicke Hinl. in die Offenbarung Joh. p. 141, places it in the middle of the second 
century, Jachmann der Hirte des Hermas, Konigsb. 1835, in the beginning of it, and 
regards the Hermas of Paul as the author. 


110 FIRST PERIQD.—DIV. L—AD. 1-117. 


completeness of the church. The disciples of John are Ignatius, 
bishop of Antioch (see § 33, note 8),° Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna 
{7 167),° and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis," of whose writings 


5 Seven epistles ad Smyrnaeos, ad Polycarpum, ad Ephesios, ad Magnesios, ad Phila- 
delphienses, ad Trallianos, ad Romanos (Polycarp Ep. c. 13, mentions the epistles of 
Ignatius in general, Iren. v. 28 cites that to the Romans, Origenes prol. in Cant. Cant. and 
Hom. yi. in Lucam those to the Romans and Ephesians; Eusebius, iii. 36 mentions all the 
seven) are extant in a longer and in a shorter recension. - (The latter was first published 
by Is. Vossius, at Amstel. 1649. 4to.) The controversy concerning their genuineness was 
interwoven with that respecting the origin of Episcopacy. In the older literature, which 
is rich in notices of the epistles, the chief work in favor of the authenticity is: Jo. Pearson. 

“Vindiciae epistol. 8. Ignatii. Cantabr. 1672. 4. The leading work against the authenticity 
is: Jo. Dallaeus de scriptis, quae sub Dionysii Areop. et lgnatii Antioch. nominibus cir- 
cumferuntur. Geney. 1666. 4. Recently Rothe (Anfange p. 715) defended the authen- 
ticity. But in opposition to him, Baur (iiber die Ursprung des Episkopats, S. 148, ff) 
asserted that those letters were composed at Rome in the second half of the second cen- 
tury, on the side of the pure Pauline Christianity against the Petrine Judaizing tendency 
which had found expression in the Clementines. Dr. J..E. Huther again defended.the 
authenticity with reference to these doubts (Ilgen’s Zeitschrift fir die histor. Theol. 1841, 
iv. 1). As regards the two recensions, W. Whiston (Primitive Christianity revived. 
Lond. 1711) is the only person who has declared the longer to be the original one; 
while Dr. F. K. Maier (theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1836. ii. 340) is of opinion that it comes much 
nearer the original text. Against the latter see Rothe, l. c. p. 739, and Arndt (theol. Stud. 
u. Krit. 1839. 1.136). J.E. Chr. Schmidt (in Henke’s Magazin. iii. 91) thought that both 
recensions arose from a thorough revision of the genuine text, but yet he admitted (in his 
Biblioth. fir Kritik. u. Exegese d. N. T. ii. 29) that the shorter comes nearest to the 
genuine text. Netz (theol. Stud. u. Kritik. 1835. iv. 881) has repeated the same opinion. 
Against him see Arndt (theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1839, i. 742). The latest investigations have 
all-turned out in favor of the shorter recension (see Rothe, Arndt, Huther, ll.cc. F. A. 
Chr. Diisterdieck, quae de Ignatianarum epistolarum authentia, duorumque textuum ra- 
tione et dignitate hucusque prolatae sunt sententiae enarrantur et dijudicantur. Got- 
tingae. 1843. 4. Worthy of attention are the remarks of Arndt, S. 139, respecting the 
necessity of revising the text of the shorter recension after the best MSS. and other 
existing critical helps. Eight other pretended letters of Ignatius are certainly spurious. 
[See particularly “The ancient Syriac version of the epistles of St. Ignatius to St. Polycarp, 
the Ephesians, and the Romans; together with extracts from his epistles collected from 
the writings of Severus of Antioch, Timotheus of Alexandria, and others. Edited with an 
English translation and notes. Also the Greek text of these three epistles, corrected 
according to the authority of the Syriac version. By William Cureton, M.A., London. 
1845. 8vo. 

6 Epist. ad Philippenses, mentioned so early as by Irenaeus, iii. 3 (ap. Euseb. iv. 14, 3), 
frequently, however, controverted by the opponents of the Ignatian epistles, doubted of by 
Semler and Rossler, and recently declared to be spurious by Schwegler (der Montanismus 
und d. Christl. Kirche. Tubingen. 1841. 8. 260). On the other side, Schliemann’s Clem- 
entinen, S. 418. : 

1 "ladvvov péev axovotic, ToAvedprov dé éraipoc yeyovec, Iren. v. 33, is said to have 
suffered martyrdom in 163, in Pergamus (Chronic. pasch. ed. Bonn. i. 481), wrote Aoyiav 
kuptaxov é&nynowc ; fragments in Grabe, ii. p. 26. Routh, i.p.1. In Euseb. H. E. iii. 36, he 
is called: dvyp Ta mévTa 6tt wddtoTa AoyLaTaToC, Kai THe ypadye eidjuwrv (respecting 
the omission of these words in some MSS. after Rufin’s example, see Kimmel de Rufino, 
p- 236). But because he expressed very gross millennarianism in his writings (although 
that doctrine was older), Eusebius passes a very severe judgment upon him, H. E. iii. 39: 
XiAvdda tid dnow érdv Ececbar pera THv ex vexpGv dvdotaciv, cwuaTixGe tig Tod 
Xptorot BactAeiac xi tavtgot tHe yo bxooTncouévnc—ogddpa yap To cuiKpog Ov Tov 


CHAP. IIl—AGE OF JOHN. § 36. DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT. - 11] 


nothing but fragments are extant. ‘The compositions attributed 
to Dionysius the Areopagite (Acts xvii. 34) are spurious.® 


§ 36. 
DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE IN THIS PERIOD. 


While the stricter party of Jewish Christians maintained the 
Jewish particularism, and therefore constantly indeavored to impose 
on the Gentile Christians the observance of the Mosaic law,’ 
that speculation which strove to comprehend Christianity in its 
peculiar nature was always becoming more powerful in other 
quarters. Inasmuch as a speculative basis was not yet firmly 
established, great freedom was allowed for it; but as soon as it 
trenched upon the moral and religious interests of Christianity, 
it was resisted, and not till then.2 It was principally with the 
wonderful person of Christ, which it endeavored to understand, 
that speculation occupied itself. ven here the most different 
tendencies were indulged in, as long as they left unimpaired the 
divine and human in Christ, by the union of which the atoning 
and model character of the life of Jesus was necessarily consti- 
tuted. Hence, the Shepherd of Hermas, with its peculiar ; 
Christology, gave no offense. On the contrary, the doctrine of 


voov.—nAjqv Kal Toi¢ wer’ abriv rAciorotg Score TOV éxkAnotactixGy THe duoiac abTo 
d6&n¢ mapairiog yéyove—Gorep obv Eipnvaiy x. t. 2. With what right Eusebius, who 
in his Chronicon (Olymp. 220) allows Papias without hesitation to have been a disciple 
of the apostle John, declares in this work that he was only the pupil of a certain presbyter 
John, is examined by Olshausen, die Echtheit der vier kanon. Evangelien. Konigsb. 
1823. S. 224, ff. : 

8 Respecting them see below § 110, note 4. 

1 Against this party is directed Epist. Barnabae, c. 1-16. 

2 Thus an error which threatened to turn Christian liberty into licence is combated 
in the Epistle of Jude, which was written after the destruction of Jerusalem (Credner’s 
Einl. in d. N. T. i. ii. 611), and in the 2d Epistle of Peter, which is an imitation of that 
of Jude (Credner, i. ii. 650). The false teachers mentioned in the latter epistle denied the 
return of Christ and the judgment (2 Peter iii. 3, ff.). 

3 Hermae Pastor, iii. 5,5: Filius Spiritus sanctus est. iii. 9,1: Spiritus filius Dei est. 
iii. 9, 12: Filius Dei omni creatura antiqaior est, ita ut in consilio patri suo adfuerit ad 
-condendam creaturam. C. 14: Nomen filii Dei magnum et immensum est, et totus ab eo 
sustentatur orbis. This spirit dwells in men, i. 5,1: Td mvedua TO dylov KatotKkoby év 
Got. iii. 5, 6: Accipiet mercedem omne corpus purum ac sine macula repertum, in quo 
habitandi gratia constitutus fuerit Spiritus sanctus. The Holy Spirit is the essence of ali 
virtues, which, iii. 9, 13, are designated under the title of virgins, and even called Spiritus 
sancti: non aliter homo potest in regnum Dei intrare, nisi hae (virgines) induerint eum 


112. FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 1-117. 


\ the Docetae was rejected, which represented Christ’s humanity 


as a mere appearance, in the way that the Jews conceived of 
the manifestations of angels (doxqrai).‘ In the mean time, 
however, speculation relative to the higher nature of Christ and 
the essence of Christianity, attached itself to the more general 
questions respecting the creation of the world and the origin of 
evil. Here the Alexandrine Jewish philosophy presented itself 
as a pattern. The idea of the Adyoc in particular was borrowed 
from it for the purpose of explaining the higher nature of Christ.° 
‘John followed this speculation in his gospel, in order to divert it 
from the region of a fruitless hyper-naturalism into a considera- 
tion of the moral efficacy of the Logos. It went astray, how- 


veste sua. Quicunque nomen filii Dei portat, haruam quogue nomina portare debet: nam 
et Filius nomina portat earam. Respecting the person of Christ, iii. 5,2: A master in- 
trusts a faithful servant with the care of a vineyard, praecipiens, ut vitibus jungeret palos. 
The servant does for him still more than he had been ordered. The master consults about 
rewarding him adhibito filio, quem carum et haeredem habebat, et amicis, quos in consilio 
advocabat, and concludes: volo eum filio meo facere cohaeredem. The explanation, c. 5: 
The master is God, Filius autem Spiritus sanctus est: servus vero, ille Filius Dei est. 
Vinea autem populus est, quem servatipse. Pali vero Nuncii (angels) sunt, qui a Domino 
praepositi sunt ad continendum populum ejus. C.6: Quare autem Dominus in consilio 
adhibuerit Filium de haereditate et bonos Angelos? Quia Nuncius (Christ) audit illam 
Spiritum sanctum, qui infusus est omnium primus, in corpore, in quo habitarct Deus. 
Cum igitur corpus illud paraisset omni tempore Spiritui sancto; placuit Deo—ut et huic 
corpori—locus aliquis consistendi daretur, ne videretur mercedem servitutis suae perdi- 
disse. A useful application, c. 7: Corpus hoc tuum custodi mundum atque purum; ut 
Spiritus ille-qui inhabitabat in eo, testimonium referat illi, et tecum fuisse judicetur. The 
eternal Son of God is here the Holy Spirit, and there is no account of a personal union of 
him with the man Jesus. Against Jachmann Hirte des Hermas, 8. 70, and Schliemann 
Clementinen, S. 423, who wish to defend the orthodoxy of Hermas, see Baur Lehre von 
der Dreieinigkeit, i. 134. 


+ Later names: Phantasiastae, Phantasiodocetae, Opinarii. Perhaps even 1 Joh. iv. 2;_ 


2 Joh. 7 (see Liicke’s Comm. zu Johannes, 2te Aufl. iii. 66). Distinctly and often in 
’ Ignatius ad Ephes. vii. 18, ad Trallianos ix. 10, ad Smyrn. 1-8: "Incoty 7d doxeiv 
(doxjcet, Gavracia) mexovUévat, and in the Evang. Petri (Serapion apud Euseb. yi. 12). 
Cf. Hieronymus adv. Luciferianos (ed. Martian. tom. iv. p. ii. p. 304): Apostolis adhuc in 
saeeulo superstitibus, adhuc apud Judaeam Christi sanguine recenti, phantasma Domini 
corpus asserebatur. So thought the Jews about the appearances of angels, Tob. xii. 19. 
Philo de Abrah. p. 366: Tepdoriov 62 kai 76 uy Tetvdvtac TeLvOvTor, Kai un EcbiovTag 
écOiévTwv rapéxetv davtaciav. (Comp. Neander’s gnostische Systeme, S. 23.) Josephus 
Antt. i. 11, 2, v.6, 2: @avrdopatoc 6’ ab7@ (Gideoni) tapactravtog veavickov uopdy. The 
church fathers had the very same idea of the appearances of angels, comp. Keilii opusc. 
ed. Goldhorn ii. 548. H. A. Niemeyer comm. de Docetis. Halae, 1823. 4. 
5 So also in the xjpvyua Dérpov. Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p. 427, Credner’s Beitrige zur 
Einl. in die bibl. Schriften, i. 354. 
§ Liicke’s Comm. iiber d. Evangel. d. Johannes. 3te Aufl. i. 202. C.L.W. Grimm de 
-Joanneae christologiae indole Paulinae comparata. Lips. 1833.8. K.Frommann’s der 
Johanneische Lehrbegriff in his Verhaltnisse zur gesammten biblisch-christl. Lehre. 


Leipzig, 1839. 8. K. R. Késtlin’s Lehrbegriff des Evang u. der Briefe Johannis. Berlin, 
1843, 8. 


CHAP. II]—AGE OF JOHN. § 36. DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT. 113 


ever, even at that time, falling into that false Gnosis which de- 
nies the fundamental principles of Christianity, and which the 
apostle Paul had already predicted in its germs. The first Chris- 
tian-Gnostic system was that of Cerinthus, in which, however, 
the Gnosis did not yet attain a consistent development, but was 
obliged to accommodate itself to many Jewish opinions.’ — 


7 According to him, the God of the Jews (dyuzovpyéc) is separated from the highest God 
by a series of Aeons, and the highest God was first revealed by the Aeon Christ. The 
Mosaic law, however, must be observed, a resurrection and thousand years’ reign be 
expected. J. E. Ch. Schmidt Cerinth ein judaisirender Christ, in his Bibliothek fur 
Kritik u. Exegese des N. T. i. 181. H.E. G. Paulus historia Cerinthi in his Introduc- 
tionis in N. T. capita selectiora. Jenae. 1799. 8. Neander’s Kirchengesch. 2te Aufl. 
i. ii. 683. 

VOL. I.—8 


114 FIRST PERIOD.--DIV. I.—A.D. 117-193 


SECOND DIVISION. 


FROM HADRIAN TO SEPTIMUS SEVERUS. FROM 117-193. 


INTRODUCTION. 


§ 37. 


STATE OF PAGANISM. 


P.E. Miller de hierarchia et studio vitae asceticae in sacris et mysteriis Graecorum 
Romanorumaue latentibus. Hafn. 1803. 8, in the second section (translated in the Neue 


Biblioth. der schénen Wissenschaften. Bd. 69. S. 207, ff.). Tzschirner’s der Fall des - 


Heidenthums. Bd. 1. 8. 124-164. 


Although the emperors of this time preserved to the Roman 
empire external security, maintained internal order and justice, 
and favored the sciences,’ yet the old Roman morality and re- 
ligious sobriety could not be restored among the degenerate peo- 
ple. The propensity to theosophic mysteries, consecrations, and 
purifications (§ 14), produced new institutions which ministered 
to superstition. They were no longer satisfied with the wan- 
dering priests of Isis and Cybele, the Chaldeans and Magic. In 
the second century, many secret rites or mysteries were spread 
abroad over the Roman empire in addition to the former (those 
of the Dea Syra, of Isis, of Mithras). Besides these, the old 
Eleusinian and Dionysian mysteries also came again into greater 
repute, though it would appear that they were variously accom- 
modated to the spirit of the’ time. Abstinence from sensual 
pleasures was a universal condition of initiation, by which it 
was supposed that the people obtained a nearer communion with 
the deities as they passed through the different gradations of the 
mysteries. This period was conscious of its godless condi- 
tion, but mistaking the religious moral way, it sought to obtain 


1 Schlosser’s universalhist. Uebersicht d. Geschichte d. alten Welt, iii. ii. 167. Bern- 
hardy’s Grandriss d. rém. Literatur. S.126. The same author’s Grundriss d. griech. 
Literatur. i. 406. ; 


INTRODUCTION. § 38. FATE OF THE JEWS. 115 


purity by magic, with the aid of all kinds of external observ- 
ances. -We have a proof, in the horrible T'awrobolium and 
Kriobolium which now appeared, of the extreme ingenuity of 
superstition. The prevailing philosophy continued to be that/ 
Platonic eclecticism which adopted and defended all supersti- 
tions,” although by it a certain monotheism was elevated above 
polytheism, even in the view of the people generally.*. Among 
the Platonics of this time, the most distinguished are Plutarch 
of Chaeronea [ft 120], Apuleius of Madaura [about 170] and 
Maximus of Tyre [about 190]. In opposition to this dogmatic 
philosophy, skepticism, too, was always rising to a higher degree 
of strength. Sextus Empiricus. 


§ 38. 


FATE OF THE JEWS. 


Dio Cassius, Ixviii. c. 32, ixix.c. 12-14. Euseb. Hist. eccl. iv. c. 2 u.6.—F. Minter der 
jiid. Krieg unter den Kaisern Trajan u. Hadrian. Altona u. Leipz. 1821. 8. Jost’s 
Gesch. d. lsraeliten, Th. 3, S. 181, f£ 


The hatred of the Jews against the Romans was still more 
increased by the destruction of Jerusalem, and the great oppres- 
sion that followed, and soon began to manifest itself in new acts 
of rebellion. An insurrection first broke out in Cyrenaica 
(115), which spread over Egypt also, and raged longest in Cy- 
prus. Another was kindled simultaneously in Mesopotamia. 
Even Hadrian found relapses of these rebellions, which required 


2 Numenius (about 130) wep? tayafod lib. i. (apud Eusebii Praep. evang. ix. 7): Ele 
$2 tovto dejoe: eimovta, Kai onuyvauevov Taig paptvpiace rod IAdtwvo¢, dvaywpf- 
cacbat Kai Evvdjoacbar roig Adyorg Tod MvOayépov: énixarécacbar d2? ta EOvy Ta 
ebdokiwodvTa, Tpocgepbuevov abrdv Tac TeAeTac, Kal Ta Obypara, Tag Te Léptcetg cuv- 
tedovupévac WAdravi duodoyoupévac, dxdca¢g Boayyavec, cat ’lovdaie, cai Méyot, xai 
Alyirriot dcéBevro. 

3 Maximus Tyrius Diss. xvii. (al. i.) ex rec. J. Davisii. Lond. 1740. 4. p. 193, with 
reference to the different opinions of men respecting divine things: ‘Ev tocovtw dy 
woléuw, kal ordoet, Kai diagwvia, Eva idoig dv év racy yy buddwvov vduov Kal Adyov, 
6rt Oed¢ ele avTwv BaoiAede, kal maTHp, Kal Oeot roAAOl, Oeod maidec, cvvapxovTec 
G26. Tatra dé 6 “EAdgy Aéyet, Kal 6 BapBapoc A€éyet, Kal 6 ArEe—porTne, kal 6 Baddar- 
TL0¢, Kai 6 coddc, kal 6 doodgoc. Kédv ext Tod Gkeavod EAOyG Tag Hidvac, Kdket Bedi, 
Toi¢ bev dvioyovrec ayxob aaa, toic dé Kkatadvéuevot. Accotdingly we now fre- 
~ quently meet with the view that the numerous names of the deities designated nothing 
but the same being under different aspects. Apuleii Metamorph. lib. xi. ed, Elmenhorst. 
p. 258, ss. Lobeck Aglaophamus, t. i. p. 460, ss. To this also the figurae pantheae, fre- 
quently found on gems, point. 


\ 


116 FIRST PERIOD.—DIYV. II.—A.D. 117-193. 


to be combated, and appears to have been led by them to enter- 
tain the idea of doing away the dangerous and exclusive nation- 
ality of this people, by prohibiting circumcision.’ As he resolved, 
at the same time, to restore Jerusalem by means of a Roman 
colony, a pretended Messiah soon made his appearance, who, under 
the title of Bar Cochab (Numb. xxiv. 17),? obtained many adhe- 
rents, especially by the recognition of abbi Akiba, elevated the 
fortress Bether to be the seat of his kingdom, and endeavored 
from it to drive the Romans out of the land (132). His con- 
quests had already extended beyond Syria, when Julius Severus 
appeared, and, after a bloody war, put an end to the insurrection 
by taking possession of Bether (135). Palestine became a com- 
plete wilderness. The colony of Aelia Capitolina rose on the 
ruins of Jerusalem, but access to it was prohibited to the Jews 
on pain of death. Hadrian’s prohibition of circumcision was/ 
first abolished by Antoninus Pius.* 


1 Spartianus in Hadriano, c. 14. Moverunt ea tempestate et Judaei bellum, quod 
vetabantur mutilare genitalia. 

2 Called after his want of success, 82°#)3 13 filius mendacii. 

3 Modestinus JCtus (about 244) in Dig. lib. xlviii. tit. 8.1.11: Cireumcidere. Judaeis. 
filios suos tantum rescripto Divi Pii permittitur: in non ejusdem religionis qui hoc fecerit, 
castrantis poena irrogatur. Ulpianus in Dig. lib. L.tit, 2.1.3.§3: Eis, qui Judaicam 
superstitionem sequantur, D. Severus et Antoninus honores (namely, decurionum) adipisci 
permiserunt: sed et necessitates (the onera functiones et munera incumbent on the decu- 
riones) eis imposuerunt, quae superstitionem eorum non laederent. Julius Paulus (about 
222) in his sententiis receptis (in Schultingii Jurisprudentia vetus antejustinianea and 
Hugo Jus civile antejustin. tom. i.) lib. v. tit. 22. de seditiosis 3: Cives Romani, qui se 
Judaico ritu vel servos suos circumcidi patiuntur, bonis ademptis in insulam perpetuo 
relegantur. Medici capite puniuntur. 4. Judaci si alienae nationis comparatos servos 
circumciderint, aut deportantur aut capite puniuntur. Even the Samaritans were not 
allowed to practice circumcision, Origenes c. Celsum, li. c. 13. p. 68. ed. Spencer. 


CHAP. L—EXTERNAL HISTORY. § 39. DIFFUSION. 117 - 


FIRST CHAPTER. 


EXTERNAL HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 


§ 39. 
ITS DIFFUSION. 


Although the Christian writers of this time manifestly speak 
in exaggerated terms of the spread of Christianity,’ yet the ex- 
traordinary progress it made can not be mistaken. In the west, 
it extended from Rome to western Africa, where Carthage was 
its chief seat.? In Gaul, we find churches at Lyons and Vienne, 
immediately after the middle of the second century (Euseb. V. c. 
1). From this country Christianity may have spread into Ger- 


1 Justin. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 117: Odd? év yap 62w¢ éoti Td yévog dvOpdruv, etre Bap- 
Bdpur, eite ‘EAAQvar, elte GrAGe OTWLoiy dvopate TpecayopEevouévar, 7 &uatoBior, } 
toikov.xahovuéver, 7 év oxnvaic xtnvotpédwv oikobvtar, év ol¢ uy did Tob bvéuaToc 
tod otavpwlévrog "Iyoot edyai kal ebyaptotia: TO Tatpi Kai meinTh TOV 6Awv yivovrat. 
Trenaeus, i.3: Kai otre ai év Tepuaviate idpvuévar exxaAnoiat ddAwe reroretxacw, 7) 
GAdwc napadidéao, obte év Taig I Bnpiate, obre év Kedtoic, odte Kata Tac dvaroAdc, 
obre év Aiytrry, obte Ev AlGby, odte ai KaT& péca Tod Kécuov idpvuévar. Tertullianus 
adv. Judaeos c.7: In quem enim alium universae gentes crediderunt nisi in Christum, 
qui jam venit? Cui enim et aliae gentes crediderunt: Parthi, Medi, Elamitae, et qui 
inhabitant Mesopotamiam, Armeniam, Phrygiam, Cappadociam, et incolentes Pontum et 
Asiam, Pampbyliam, immorantes Aegyptum et regionem Africae, quae est trans Cyrenen, 
inhabitantes Romam, et incolae tunc et in Hierusalem Judaei et caeterae gentes (ac- 
cording to Acts ji.9, 10): etiam Getulorum varietates, et Mauroram multi fines, Hispani- 
arum omnes termini, et Galliarum diversae nationes, et Britannoram inaccessa Romanis 
loca, Christo vero subdita, et Sarmatarum et Dacorum et Germanorum et Scytharum et 
abditarum multarum gentium, et provinciarum et insularum multarum, nobis ignotarum, 
et quae enumerare minus possumus. In the Roman empire: Tertulliani Apol. c.37: Si 
enim hostes exertos, non tantum vindices occultes agere vellemus, deesset nobis vis 
numerorum et copiarum? Plures nimiruam Mauri et Marcomanni ipsique Parthi, vel 
quantaecunque, unius tamen loci ef suorum finium, gentes, quam totius orbis? Hesterni “ 
_ sumus, et vestra omnia implevimus, urbes, insulas, castella, municipia, conciliabula, castra 

ipsa, tribus, decurias, palatium, senatum, foram. Iren. iv. 49, mentions fideles, qui in 
regali aula sunt et ex iis, quae Caesaris sunt, habent utensilia. 

2 Fr. Minteri Primordia eccl. Africanae. Hafn. 1829. 4. p. 6, ss. The numbets of the 
Christians here, even ‘so early as the end of the second century, may be inferred from 
Tertullian Apologet. c. 37: Hesterni sumus et vestra omnia implevimus, urbes, insulas, 
castella, municipia etc., and adv. Scapul. c. 5, when it is said that, in case of a persecution 
of the Christians, Carthage would ‘have to be decimated. About 200 4.p. a synod was 
held under Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage (Cyprian. Epist. 71 and 73), which, according to 
Augustin. de Baptism. ii. c. 13, consisted of seventy African and Numidian bishops. 


118 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IL.—A-D. 117-193. 


many (Cisrhenana) * and Britain, but only by the efforts of indi- 
viduals. In the east, we find it firmly established in Edessa, 
so early as the middle of the second century ;* and from this 
eity it had also extended itself, as it seems, into the countries 
lying eastward.* In northern Arabia,*® there must likewise have 
been Christians so early as this period. About 180, Pantaenus 
went from Alexandria to India,’ to preach the gospel in that re- 
gion (Euseb. H. E. v. 10). 


§ 40 


OPPOSITION TO CHRISTIANITY BY WRITERS. 


Tzchirner’s der Fall des Heidenthums. Bd. 1. 8, 313, ff. 


U The principal opponent of Christianity at this period was the 
Epicurean Celsus (about 150), who, in a work styled “ aan6i¢ 


Aoyoc,” and perhaps in others now lost, collected all that could 
be said against it with any appearance of probability... The 


3 ©. J. -Hefele’s Gesch. d. Einfiihrung des Christenthums in siidwestl. Deutschland. 
Tiibingen. 1837.S. 42. ' : 

4 The Christian scholar Bardesanes, about 160-170, was highty esteemed by the prince 
of Edessa, Abgar Bar Manu. According to the Chronicon of Edessa in Assemani Bibl. 
orient. i. 391, the church of the Christians in Edessa was destroyed by an inundation as 
early as 202'a.D.. Comp. Bayer Historia Osrhoena et Edessena. Petrop. 1734. 4. p. 170. 

5 Bardesanes de Fato (in Eusebii Praep. evang. vi. c. 10): Odre oi év MapGia Xpioriavor 
moAvyapovot, Ildpbor ixdpyovrec, ov of év Mndia xvoi mapaBarrover toi vexpotc - 
oby ol év Tepoids yapotor tic Ovyatépac aitév, Wépoat bvrec- ob apa Baxrpoic Kai 
TéAAot¢ GBeipover Tove yapovcg’ oby of év Aiyintw Opnoxetover Tov "Arniv, } Tov Kova, 
tov Tpiyov, 7) Aidovpov~ GA2’ Srov eiciv, obte bd TOY KaKdC KEtvev visor, Kai 
206v vikGvTat. 

6 Arabia Petraea, since the time of Trajan a Roman province under the name Arabia, 
its chief city being Bostra, or Nova Colonia Trajana. So early as the middle of the third 
century there were many bishops here, Euseb. vi. 33, 37. 

7 Probably Yemen, see § 27, note 28. Comp. Redepenning’s Origines, i. 66. 

1 Celsus and his work are known only by the refutation of Origen (contra Celsum libb. 
viii. ed. G. Spencer. Cantabrig. 1677. 4to, translated by Mosheim, Hamburg. 1745. 4to, cf. 
C. R. Jachmann de Celso philosopho disseruit, et fragmenta libri, qaem contra Christianos 
edidit, collegit, a Koenigsberg Easter-programm. 1836. 4). Origen calls him an Epicv- 
rean (i. p. 8, ebpioxerar tf GAAwv cvyypaypdtov ’Exixotpetoc Gv), who merely kept back 
his Epicureanism in his work (iv. p. 163, uy wévv éudaiver 61a Tod ovyypauparoc Tov 
"Exikotpetoy, GAA mpooroLobpevor mpovotar eidévat), and assumed the mien of a Platonic 
philosopher (iv. p. 219, év to2Aocic zAarwviverv Gé/et) ; doubtless because he was able to 
influence the religious heathen only in this way. In opposition to the opinion that Celsus 
was really a Platonist, which has become common on Mosheim’s authority (preface to his 
version of Origen, p. 22, ff.), his Epicureanism is asserted by J. F. Fenger de Celso, 
Christianoram adversario, Epicureo comm. Havn. 1828.8. Taschirner’s Fall des Heiden- 


CHAP. I—EXTERNAL HISTORY. § 41. POPULAR DISPOSITION. 119 


Cynic philosopher Crescens, and the rhetorician M. Cornelius 
Fronto (about 150), are known as the enemies of Christianity 
only by detached passages.” Lucian of Samosata (about 180) 
also considered Christianity in no other light than as one of the 
many follies of the time, which deserved the satirical lash.’ 


§ 41. 


DISPOSITION OF THE PEOPLE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE TOWARD 
CHRISTIANITY. 


Christ. Kortholt Paganus obtrectator. Kilon. 1698. 4. J.J. Huldrici Gentilis obtrectator. 
Tigur. 1744. 8. G. F. Gudii Paganus Christianorum laudator et fautor. Lips. 1741. 4. 
Tzschirner der Fall des Heidenthums, i, 225, ff 335, ff. G.G.S. Koepke de statu et 
conditione Christianorum sub impp. Romanis alterius p. Chr. saeculi. Berol. 1828. 4. 
(A school-programm.) 


In proportion as the peculiar nature of Christianity, as a dif- 
ferent system from Judaism, became better known, so much the 


thums, i. 325. According to F. A. Philippi de Celsi, adversarii Christianorum, philosophandi 
genere. Berol. 1836. 8, he was an eclectic with a special leaning to Epicurus. According 
to C. W. I. Bindemann (iiber Celsus u. seine Schrift gegen die Christen, in Illgen’s 
Zeitschr. fiir d. hist. Theol. 1842, ii. 58), he was a Platonic philosopher of a more liberal 
tendency, who agreed with Epicurus in many points. According to Origen, i. p. 28, 
Celsus lived card ‘Adptavov kai katwtépw. It is certain that he wrote in the second half 
of the second century, for he recognizes the whole of the Gnostic sects, and even the 
Marcionites (vy. p. 272), as parties completely formed. Probably he is the same Celsus to 
whom Lucian dedicates his Alexander, as is assumed by the ancient scholiast (see Luciani 
Alexander ed. C. G. Jacob, Colon. 1828, p. 8. Fenger p. 40,-ss.. Bindemann, I. c. 99). 
Origen does not know (i. p. 53, iv. p. 186) whether he is the same Celsus who wrote 
several books against magic, and two other books against the Christians. 

2 Respecting Crescens comp. Euseb. iv. 16, where also the passages Justin. Apol. ii. ¢. 
3. Tatian. Orat. c. 19, are quoted: Respecting Fronto see Minvcius Fel. c. 9 and c. 31. 

3 In his works de morte Peregrini, c. 11-16, Alexander c. 25, 38, de vera Historia, i. 12, 
30, ii. 4,11, 12, cf. Walchii Rerum christianarum apud Luciauum de morte Peregr. expli- 
catio, in the Novis commentariis Soc. Reg. scient. Gotting. t. viii. p. 1,ss. Lucianus num 
scriptis suis adjuvare religionem christianam voluerit diss. scripsit H. C. A. Eichstidt. 
Jenae. 1820. 4 (also in Luciani Opp. ed. Lehmann, t. i. p. lxxv. ss.). Tzschirner’s Gesch. 
d. Apologetik, i. 200, ff. The same author’s Fall. des Heidenthums, i. 315, ff. K.G.Jacob’s 
Charakteristik Lucian’s vy. Samosata.. Hamburg. 1832, S. 155. Baur’s Apollonius von 
Tyana u. Christus, 8.140. The dialogue Philopatris according to J. M. Gesneri de aetate 
-et auctore dialogi Lucianei, qui Philopatris inscribitur, ed. 3. Gotting. 1741 (also in Luciani 
Opp. ed. Reitz. iii. 708, ss.), is usually placed in the time of Julian. According to Niebuhr 
it was first composed under the emperor Nicephorus Phocas, in the year 968 or 969, see 
Corporis scriptt. hist. Byzant. Bonnensis, P. xi. (Leo Diaconus, &c.) praef. p. ix. On the 
other side, see Bernhardy in the Berlin Jahrbiicher,. Juli, 1832, S.131, and Neander K. G. ii. 

1. 190. A new opinion is advanced by Ehemann in Stirm’s Studien der ev. Geistlichk. 
Wirtemberg’s, 1839, S. 47. + 


120 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IL.—A.D, 117-193. 


more must it have appeared, when viewed from the position of 
a heathen citizen, as a hostile threatening power, whose rapid 
diffusion was highly suspicious. The Christians saw only evil 
demons in the gods of the heathen; and since the worship of 
the gods had pervaded all forms of life, they were compelled en- 
tirely to withdraw themselves from the public and the domestic. 
life of the heathen, from their amusements, and their works 
of art.1_ Hence Christianity appeared to the heathen in the light 
of a misanthropic superstition.? But the Christians refused 
even to the emperors the usual marks of divine honor paid them.? 
They cherished among them the expectation that a near de- 
struction was impending over all the kingdoms of the earth ;* 
and many would not assume thecivil and military offices to which 
they were called.’ It was natural, therefore, that they should 
be looked upon as bad citizens; and however solemn was their 
asseveration that Christianity demanded still greater obedience 


- Hence from the games (cf. Tertulliani de Spectaculis liber), festivities, and banquets 
(even the wearing of garlands was not permitted. Tertull. de Corona militis. Clemens 
Alex. in Paedagogo, ii. c. 8), from certain professions, &c., cf. Tertull. de Idololatria liber. 
Neander’s Antignosticus. Berlin. 1825, 8. 22, ff. The same author's Kirchengesch. i, i. 
450, ff. Fr. Minter’s die Christinn im heidnischen Hause vor den Zeiten Constantin’s d. 
G. Kopenh. 1828, 8. 

2 Minucii Felicis Octavius, c. 12, the heathen Caecilius says : Vos vero suspensi interim 
atque solliciti honestis voluptatibus abstinetis: non spectacula Visitis, non pompis interestis: 
convivia publica absque vobis; sacra certamina, praecerptos cibos et delibatos altaribus 
potus abhorretis. Sic reformidatis deos, quos negatis. Non floribus caput nectitis, non 
corpus odoribus honestatis: reservatis unguenta funeribus, coronas etiam sepulcris dene- 
gatis, pallidi, trepidi, misericordia digni et nostroram deorum. C.8: Latebrosa et lucifuga 
natio, in publicum muta, in angulis garrula. ein 

3 Theophil. ad Autolycum, i. 11: ’Epei¢ pot* dia ti ob mpookuveic Tov Bactréa; Ter- 
tullianus ad Nationes, i. 17: Prima obstinatio est, quae secunda ab eis religio constituitur 
Caesarianae majestatis, quod irreligiosi dicamur in Caesares: neque imagines eorum 
repropitiando, neque genios dejerando hostes populi nuncupamur. Tertull. de Idololatr. ec. 
13-15, is zealous even against the illumination and decoration of the doors in honor of the 
emperors, cf. c. 15: Igitur quod attineat ad honores regum vel imperatorum, satis 
praescriptum habemus, in omni obsequio esse nos oportere, secundum Apostoli praecep- 
tum, subditos magistratibus et principibus et potestatibus: sed intra limites disciplinae, 
quousque ab idololatria separamur.—aAccendant igitur quotidie lucernas, quibus lux nulla 
est, adfigant postibus lauros posfmodum arsuras, quibus ignes imminent: illis competunt 
et testimonia tenebrarum, et auspicia poenarum. Tu lumen es mundi, et arbor virens 
semper. Si templis renuntiasti, ne feceris templum januam tuam. 

* How this was expressed in a manner exasperating to the heathen, especially by the 
Montanists, see below § 48, note 5. On this account, it appeared to the heathen politically 
dangerous. Justini Apol. i. 11: Kai tyuei¢ dxotcavres Bacttetay mpocdoxdvrac jae, 
dxpitoc GvOpdrivoy Aéyewy Huds breaHgare, Hudv THY weTa Oeod AeyévTwr. 

5 Especially Tertull, de Idol. c. 17,18. Idem de Cor. militis,c.11. Origen. c. Celsum. 
vill. p. 427: Still, however, there were many Christian soldiers at this time. Neander’s 
K. Gui. i. 464. 


CHAP. I—EXTERNAL HISTORY. § 41. POPULAR DISPOSITION. 121 


to the powers under which they lived,® it appeared, notwith- 
standing, in the eyes of the heathen, accustomed as they were 
to a religion subordinate to political objects, a circumstance 
so much the more suspicious, that the Christians were con- 
stantly obliged to annex a condition, viz., that the commands 
of the magistrate should not contradict the Divine law.’ The 
moral impression which the doctrine and customs of the 
Christians must have made on the unbiased, was weakened 
by prejudices. The Jews, in whom an accurate knowledge 
of Christianity was presupposed, contributed to increase the 
disposition which was adverse to it.* Many of the heathen 
recognized .in the Christian doctrine much that was true, but 
believed that they possessed it still purer in their philosophy,° 
and took offense at its positive doctrines.'* Credulous per- 
sons allowed themselves to be deceived by ridiculous fab- 
rications respecting the objects which the Christians wor- 


6 Epist. eccl. Smyrn. ap. Euseb. iv. 15, 9. Justinus M. Apol. i. 17. Irenaeus, v. 24. 
Theophil. ad Autolycum, i, 11. 

7 Tertulliani Apologet. c. 2: Christianum hominem omnium scelerum rerum, deorum, 
imperatorum, legum, morum, naturae totiaus inimicum existimas. C. 35: Publici hostes 
Christiani,—nos nolunt Romanos haberi, sed hostes principum Romanorum. Ad Scdpulam, 
c. 2: Circa majestatem imperatoris infamamur—Christianus nullius est hostis, nedum 
imperatoris : quem sciens a Deo suo constitui, necesse est ut et ipsum diligat, et reverea- 
tur, et honoret, et salvum velit cum toto Romano imperio, quousque saeculum stabit. 
Tamdiu enim stabit. Colimus ergo et imperatorem sic, quomodo et nobis licet, et ipsi 
expedit, ut hominem a Deo secundum, et quicquid est, a Deo consecutum, solo Deo 
minorem. Cf. contra Gnosticos, c. 14. 

8 Justinus M. Dial. c. Tryph. 17 and 108, speaks of Jewish emissaries, who had gone 
out from Jerusalem into all the world, in order to calumniate Christ and the Christians. 
Accordingly, the Jews were particularly active about the execution of Polycarp, Epist. 
eccl. Smyrn. ap. Euseb. iv. 15, 11: Madcora ‘lovdaiwy rpobipwe, dc Gog abtoig, ei¢ TobTO. 
brovpyotvtav. Respecting the cursings of the Christians in the synagogues, see Justinus 
Dial. c. Tryph. c. xvi. 47, 96, 108, 117, 137. Hieronymus in Es. v. 18; xlix. 7, lii. 5, in 
Amos. i.11. Semisch Justin d. Martyrer, i. 28. 

9 Celsus, in particular, often reverts to this (Orig. c. Cels. v. p. 274): BovAduevog Ta 
KaAd—kai BéAriov Kal tpavérepov eipyoOar mapa Toic dLAocododoy. (vi. p. 275): Kat 
xopic Gvatdcewe Kai éxayyediac Tie axd Oeod, 7 viow Geod. So he remarks (vii. p. 370) 
regarding the Christian prohibition of revenge, Matth. v. 39: ’Apyaiov Kai TovTo ev udda 
tpdcbev eipnuévor, dypotkétepov 0 abto dxeuvnuovevtat’ érei kal WAdtwr mevoinrat 
Zoxpdrng Kpitwvi diareyouevog rade x. t. 2. He assumes, in plain terms, that the 
Christians had borrowed these doctrines from the Greek philosophers, particularly from 
Plato (vi. p. 283-288). Tertull. Apolog. c. 46. 

#0 The heathen said, apud Amobius, i. c. 36: Sed non iccirco dii vobis infesti sunt, quod 
omnipotentem colatis Deum: sed quod hominem natum, et, quod personis infame est vili- 
bus, crucis supplicio interemptum, et Deum fuisse contenditis, et superesse adhuc creditis, 
et quotidianis supplicationibus adoratis. The doctrines of the resurrection of the body, and 
the judgment, were particularly offensive, comp. Celsus (Teller Fides dogmatis de resurrect. 
carnis per iv. priora secula. Halae. 1776. 8. p. 270). Tertull. Apologet. c. 18: Haec et 
nos risimus aliquando. De vestris fuimus : fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani. 


« 


122 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. Il—A_D. 117-193. 


shiped ;"' the superstitious inferred from their oppressed condi- 
tion the impotence of their God ;’* and, finally, the foreign ori- 
gin of Christianity,** as well as the humble lot of most of its 
votaries,'' were as offensive to all as the idea of an universal 
religion was absurd.'® ‘The external morality of the Christians 
could not fail to be perceived by the heathen ;’* and the broth- 
erly love prevailing among them had unquestionably attracted 
many a feeling heart to Christianity, although it sometimes 
also allured low selfishness ;*’ but the secret meetings of both 
sexes ’* gave occasion to hatred, and furnished a ground for mis- 


i1 Tertulliani Apologet. c. 16 : Somniastis, caput asininum esse Deum nostrum,—crucis 
nos religiosos.—Alii plane humanius et verisimilius solem credunt deum nostrum.—Sed 
nova jam Dei nostri in ista civitate proximo editio publicata est, namely, pictura cum 
ejusmodi inscriptione: Deus Christianoram Ononychites (according to E. A. Schulzii 
Exercitt. philolog. fasc. i. p. 30: Ononychotus; according to Havercamp and Minter 
Primord. eccl. Afr. p. 167: Onokoitis). Is erat auribus asininis, altero pede ungulatus, 
librum gestans, et togatus (see Miinter’s Christinn im heidn. Hause, §. 18), Minucius 
Felix, c. 9, below note 19. Comp. above § 16, note 6—Other fictions respecting the 
person of Jesus are referred to by Celsus, Orig. c. Cels. i. p. 22, ss. 

12 The heathen Caecilius says, apud Minuc. Felix. c. 12: Ecce pars vestram et major 
et melior, ut dicitus,-egetis, algetis, ope, re, fame laboratis: et Deus patitur, dissimulat, 
non vult aut non potest opitulari suis, ita aut invalidus, aut iniquus est. Nonni Romani 
sine vestro Deo imperant, regnant, fruuntur orbe toto, vestrique dominantur ? 

13 Celsus, therefore, calls it GépBapov déyua, Orig. c. Cels. i. p. 5. 

14 Caecilius apud Minuc. Felix, c. 5: Indignandum omnibus, indolescendumque est, 
audere quosdam, et hoc studiorum rudes, literarum profanos, expertes artiam etiam nisi 
sordidarum, certum aliquid de summa rerum ac majestate decernere, de qua tot omnibus 
\saeculis sectarum plurimarum usque adhuc ipsa philosophia deliberat. Cap. 12: Proinde 
si quid sapientiae vobis aut verecundiae est, desinite coeli plagas, et mundi fata et secreta 
rimari: satis est pro pedibus adspicere, maxime indoctis, impolitis, rudibus, agrestibus: 
quibus non est datam intelligere civilia, multo magis denegatum est disserere divina. 
How the Christians drew over to themselves ignorant, humble, and immoral men, is 
‘deseribed by Celsus with hostile exaggeration, apud Origines adv. Cels. iii. p. 144, ss. 

18 Celsus (Orig. c. Cels. viii. p. 425): Ei yap 07 ol6vTe ei¢ Eva cvudpovacas vouov Tov¢ 
tqv *Aciav, kai Eiparnv, kai ArBinv, “EAAnvdc te cal BapBdpove, Gypt mwepdtuv 
veveunuévouc !—6 TobTo olduevoc older obdév. 

16 The famous physician Claudius Galen (about 160) said in one of his last works (the 
passage is cited in a Syriac translation in Bar-Hebraei Chron. Syr. ed. Bruns et Kirsch, p. 
55, from Gal. comm. in Phaedonem Platonis; more copiously in Arabic in Abulfedae 

Historia anteislamica, ed Fleischer, p. 109, from Gal. de Sententiis politiae Platonicae) : 
- Hominum plerique orationem demonstrativam continuam mente assequi nequeunt, quare 
indigent, ut instituantar parabolis. . Veluti nostro tempore videmus, homines illos, qui 
Christiani vocantur, fidem suam e parabolis petiisse. Hi tamen interdum talia faciunt, 
qualia qui vere philosophantur. Nam quod mortem contemnunt, id quidem omnes ante 
oculos habemus; item quod verecundia quadam ducti ab usu rerum venerearum abhorrent. 
Sunt enim inter eos et foeminae et viri, qui per totam vitam a concubitu abstinuerint; 
sunt etiam, qui in animis regendis coércendisque et in acerrimo honestatis studio eo 
progressi sint, ut nihil cedant vere philosophantibus. 

17 Lucianus de morte Peregrini, c. 11-16. 

18 Particularly nightly. meetings, which were strictly forbidden by the law (see § 12, 
note 6), and constantly awakened suspicion. 


CHAP. I—EXTERNAL HISTORY. § 41. POPULAR DISPOSITION. 123 


interpreting that love, by representing it as being of an impure 
character, and several Christian practices as crimes,’® just as 
they had appeared in their own mysteries, and other secret so- 
cieties.2° The steadfastness of the martyrs must, indeed, have 
invited every unbiased mind to a nearer acquaintance with the 
source of this lofty spirit ;** but yet an unfavorable opinion was 


19 Tertull. Apologet. c. 39: Sed ejusmodi vel maxime dilectionis operatio notam nobis 
Inurit penes quosdam. Vide, inquiunt, ut invicem se diligant; ipsi enim invicem ode- 
runt: et ut pro alterutro mori sint parati; ipsi enim ad occidendum alterutrum paratiores. 
Sed et quod fratrum appellatione eensemur—infamant. The heathen Octavius ap. 
Minucius Felix, c. 9: Occultis se notis et insignibus (according to c. 31, § 9, notaculo 
corporis : the Carpocratians actually marked themselves on the ear, Iren.i. 24. Epiphan. 
Haer. xxvii. 5) noscunt, et amant mutuo paene ante quam noverint: passim etiam inter 
eos velut quaedam libidinum religio miscetur: ac se promtiscue appellant frattes et 
sorores, ut etiam non insolens stuprum, intercessione sacri nominis, fiat incestum. Ita 
eorum vana et demens superstitio sceleribus gloriatur. Nec de ipsis, nisi subsisteret 
veritas, maxime nefaria et honore praefanda sagax fama loqueretur. Audio, eos turpissi- 
mae pecudis, caput asini consecratum inepta nescio qua persuasione venerari: digna et 
nata.religio talibus moribus. Alii eos ferunt ipsius antistitis ac sacerdotis colere genitalia, 
et quasi parentis sui adorare naturam: nescio an falsa, certe occultis ac nocturtiis sacris 
apposita suspicio: et qui hominem, summo supplicio pro facinore punitum, et crucis ligna 
feralia, eoram caerimonias fabulatur congruentia perditis sceleratisque tribuit altaria, ut 
id colant, quod merentur. Jam de initiandis tirunculis fabula tam detestanda, quam nota 
est. Infans farre contectus, ut decipiat incautos, apponitur ei, qui sacris imbuitur. Is 
infans a tirunculo, farris superficie quasi ad innoxios ictus provocata, caecis occultisque 
vulneribus occiditur: hujus (proh nefas!) sitienter sanguinem lambunt: hujus certatim 
membra discerpunt: hac foederantur hostia.—Et de‘convivio notum est (passim omnes 
loquuntur), id etiam Cirtensis nostri testatur oratio;’ad epulas solemni die coéunt, cum 
omnibus liberis, sororibus, matribus, sexus omnis homines et omnis aetatis. TIllic post 
multas epulas, ubi convivium caluit, et incestae libidinis fervor ebrietate exarsit, canis, 
qui candelabro nexus est, jactu offulae ultra spatium lineae, qua vinctus est, ad impetum 
et saltum provocatur: sic everso et extincto conscio lumine impudentibus tenebris nexus 
infandae cupiditatis involvunt per incertum sortis, &c. (Cf. Tertull. Apolog.c. 8, ad Nationes, 
i. 16: also Apulejus Metam. ix. p. 223, ed. Elmenhorst, alludes to the same subject. 
Clemens Alex: Strom. iii. c. 2, relates the same thing of the Carpoeratians, from whom it 
was falsely transferred to all Christians, cf. Euseb. H. E. iv. 7, 5). According to Athan- 
agoras Apol. c. 4, the heathen brought three charges in particular against the Christians : 
GOeérnta, Ovécrera deixva and Oidirodeioug piferc. ‘ 

20 So among the Bacchanals in Rome, a.D. 185. Comp. the expressions of Livy xxxix. 
13: Ex quo in promiseuo sacra sint, et permixti viri feminis, et noctis licentia accesserit, 
nihil ibi facinoris, nibil flagitii praetermissum, plura virorum inter sese, quam feminarum 
esse stupra. Si qui minus patientes dedecoris sint, et pigriores ad facinus, pro victimis 
immolari, &c. Catiline employed human blood as pignus conjurationis (Sallust. Catil. 
22), quo inter se fidi magis forent, alius alii tanti facinoris conscii. Dio Cassius, xxxvii-30, 
relates of the same person: Ilaidé tiva xatabicac, Kai éxi tév ondayxver adbtod Ta 
6pKia rowjoac, éxecta éomAdyyvevoev ata peta Tdv GAdov. 

2 Justinus M. Apol. ii. c. 12, speaks of the impression which they had made upon him. 
Tertull. Apologeticus, c. 50: Nec quicquam tamen proficit exquisitior quaeque cradelitas 
vestra, illecebra est magis sectae; plures efficimur, quoties metimur a vobis ; semen est 
sanguis Christianorum.—lIlla ipsa obstinatio, quam exprobratis, magistra est. Quis enim 
non contemplatione ejus concutitur ad requirendum, quid intus in re sit? Quis non, ubi 
requisivit, accedit? ubi accessit, pati exhortat? 


+ >. 
124 FIRST PERIOD.~DIV.-IL+A.D. 117193. 


entertained regarding that, too, even by the cultivated, agreea- 
bly to preconceived notions.”? The Jews were still protected by 
their peculiar national character.* But the Christians were 
looked upon merely as ignorant and wild fanatics, who wished 
to destroy all established order. The cultivated laughed con- 
temptuously at them on account of the confidence and obstinacy 
of their religious faith ;** the goetae (impostors) were. inimical 
to them as opponents of their interest ;°° the people hated them 
as despisers of their gods (d@eor, AES and in the public mis- 
fortunes saw nothing but admonitions from heaven ip extermi- 
nate them.” 


22 Tertull. Apolog. c. 27: Quidam dementiam eXistimant, quod cum possimus et sacri- 
- ficare in praesenti, et illaesi abire, manente apud animum proposito, obstinationem saluti 
-praeferamus. C. 50: Propterea desperati et perditi existimamur. Arrianus Comm. de 
Epicteti disputationibus, iv.c. 7: Eira d76 paviac wév Otvarai tig obtw dtaTebjvac Tpd¢ 
tTaita (@dvatov Kk. T. A.) Kai bind Eove Gc of TadtAaior, b7d Adyou O& Kai drodeifews 
ovdeic divarat; Schweighauser in his edition, Th. 2, 8. 915, looks wpon the words é¢ of 
Tad.asa gloss. Mare. Aurel. cic éavtdév, xi. c. 3: Oia éotiv 7 Woy 7H ETommoc, Eav 70H 
amodvijvar déy Tod odpatoc, Kai HTot oBEecO#var cKedacOAvat, } cvmpetvar; TO O8 
érowmov Tovro, iva ard idixie xpicews Epynrat, wy KaTa WARY rapaTtaésty, b¢ oi Xprort- 
avol, GAG Ashoyiopévc, Kal cEuvec, kai Hote Kai GAAov Tweioat, dtpayeduc. Hichstadt 
(Exercit. Antoniniana, iii.) conjectures that the words wc of Xp. were a later interpolation 
in this place. 

23 Celsus ap. Origen. contra Celsum lib. v. p. 247, 259: Ei wév 67 kata tadra mepioréA- 
Aotev *lovdaior Tov idtov vépov, ob perma abtav, éxeivwr 08 MGAAov, TOV KaTAaLIT6VT@DP 
ta odétepa, Kai TA’ lovdatwv mpocrolovpévor. 

24 How the Jews and Christians had become a proverb on this account, see Galenus de 
Pulsuum differentiis, lib. ii. (ed. Kithn, viii. 579): Ka2Acov 0 Gv Hv ToAAG mpoobeivar tia 
—arddectw,—iva pH tic eibi¢c Kar’ dpyac, ¢ sic Mwicot Kai Xpiorod diarpiByv adty- 
pévoc, vouwv dvarodeixtay dxoby. Lib. iii. (p. 657): Odrrov yap Gv tic Tove axd 
Moicod kai Xprorod peradiddserev, 7 Tove Taic aipécect mpoaretnKétac latpote Te Kai 
diAocédovc. 

25 Thus spoke the false prophet Alexander of Abonoteichos (Luciani Alex. c. 25) to the 
inhabitants of Pontus, d0éov. tumenAjobar Kai XprotiavGv tov Iévrov,—obc éxéAeve 
AiBowe tdabverv, etye EéAovowv idew Exew Tov'Oedv. And he began his consecrations 
with the formula (c+37): Ei tig GOeoc 7 Xpiotiavdc H’Emixobpetoc Heer KatdoKoroc. TOY 
épyiwr, devyéto. ¥ 

26 Tertull. Apologet. c. 37, to the Romani imperii antitistes: Quoties in Christianos 
desaevitis, partim animis propriis, partim legibus obsequentes? Quotiens etiam praeter- 
itis vobis suo jure nos inimicum vulgus invadit lapidibus et incendiis ? Ipsis Bacchanalium 
furiis nec mortuis parcunt Christianis, quin illos de requie sepulturae, de asylo quodam 
mortis, jam alios, j jam nec totos, avellant, dissecent, distrahant. C. 40: Existimant omnis 
publicae cladis, omnis popularis incommodi Christianos esse causam. Si Tiberis ascendit 
in moenia, si Nilus non ascendit in arya, si coelum stetit, si terra movit, si fames, si luesg, 
statim: Christianos ad leonem._ 


4 


. x 


. 


CHAP. I—EXTERNAL HISTORY. § 42. PERSECUTIONS. 125 


§ 42. 
PERSECUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 


The laws against religiones peregrinae and collegia illicita 
still remained in force, even in reference to the Christians ;1 but 
they were by no means universally and uniformly enforced. 
The persecutions of this period were rather the effects of the 
people’s hatred, to which the magistrates gave way, and also of 
personal malevolence in those possessing official power. Hence 
all the persecutions of the period were confined merely to single 
cities or provinces. Under Hadrian (117-138) the people first ~ 
began to clamor for the execution of some Christians at the pub- 
lic festivals.. But at the representation of Serenius Granianus, 
proconsul of Asia Minor, Hadrian issued a rescript to the suc- 
cessor of the proconsul, interdicting such tumultuous proceed- 
ings. The tradition regarding this emperor, that he caused 
temples to be dedicated to Christ, is the more improbable, be- 
cause he entertained very erroneous and unfavorable notions of 
the Christians. Under Antoninus Pius, the Christians were 


. 

1 Hence Caecilius apud Minne. Pe c. 8, calls them homines deploratae, inlicitae ac 
desperatae factionis. Tertalliani Apologetic. c. 38: Inter licitas factiones sectam istam 
deputari oportebat, a qua nihil tale ittitur, quale de illicitis factionibus timeri 
solet, ete. “= a 

2 Originally preserved in Latin by Ju 
Greek by Eusebius (H- $9). Ru 










(Martyr. Apol. i. c. 69: then translated into 
fist. eccl. iv. 9) has probably preserved the 
Mii disquisitio in Gallandii biblioth. vett. Patr. 
T.i. p. 728): Exemplume ratoris Adriani ad Minucium Fundanum Procon- 
sulem Asiae: Accepi literas ad me scriptas a decessore tuo Serenio Graniano clarissimo 
_viro: et non placet mihi relationem silentio praeterire, ne et innoxii perturbentur, et 
calumniatoribus latrocinands& tribuatur occasio. Itaque si evidenter provinciales huic 
petitioni suae adesse valent adversum Christianos, ut pro tribunali eos in aliquo arguant, 
hoc eis exsequi non prohibeo: precibus autem in hoc solis et acclamationibus uti, eis non 
permitto. Etenim multo aequins est, si quis volet accusare, te cognoscere de objectis. Si 
quis igitur accusat, et probat adversum leges quidquam agere memoratos homines, pro 
merito peccatoram etiam supplicia statues. Illud mehercle magnopere curabis, uf, si quis 
calomniae gratia qaemquam horum postulaverit reum, in hune pro sui nequitia suppliciis 
_severioribus vindices. Cf. F. Balduinus ad edicta vett. Princip. Rom. de Christianis, p. 72. 
2 Lampridius in vita Sev. Alexandri, c. 43. Christo templum facere voluit, eumque 
inter deos recipere, Quod et Adrianus cogitasse fertur, qui templa in omnibus civitatibus 
sine simulacris jusserat fieri, quae ille ad hoc parasse dicebatur. On the other hand, . 
Spartianus in vita Hadriani, c. 22: Sacra Romana diligentissime curavit, peregrina 
eontempsit. Play. Vopiscus in vita Saturnini, c. 8, from a work of Phlegon, a freedman 
of Hadrian: Hadrianus Augustus Serviano Cs. S. Aegyptum, quam mihi laudabas, Servi 








cate 
126 FIRST PERIOD—DIV. if.—A.D. 117-183. 


disturbed afresh once and again (138-161).* But the reign 
‘of Marcus Aurelius (161-180) was still more unfavorable to 
them, for in it the frequent misfortunes that befell the empire 
caused many outbursts of the popular fury against them; while 
the emperor himself endeavored right earnestly to maintain the 
ancient reputation of the state religion. Hence the Christians 
in Asia Minor® suffered persecutions, to which even Polycarp 


ane carissime, totam didici levem, pendulam et ad omnia famae momenta yolitantem. 
Tili, qui Serapin colunt, Christiani sunt, et devoti sunt Serapi, qui se Christi episcopos 
dicunt. Nemo illic archisynagogus Judacoram, nemo Samarites, nemo Christianoram 
presbyter, non mathematicus, non haruspex, non aliptes. Ipse ille patriarcha cum 
Aegyptum venerit, ab aliis Serapidem adorare, ab aliis cogitur Christum. Unus illis 
Deus nullus est. Hunc Christiani, hunc Judaei, hunc omnes venerantur et gentes, etc. 

* Dionysius Corinth. ap. Euseb. iv. p. 23, concerning a persecution in Athens, in which 
Bishop Publius, the predecessor of Quadratus, suffered. -Melito in Apolog. ad Marc. Aurel. 
ap. Euseb. iv. c. 26,§5: ‘O 62 zatijp cov—raic méAeat rept Tod pndév vEewrepivery epi 
huov éypawev’ év ole kal mpd¢ Aapiocaiove, Kal mod¢ Oeccadovixeic Kai ’AOnvaiove, 
Kai mpoc mdvrac “EAAnvac. This writing may have given rise to the opihion that the 
Edictum ad commune Asiae proceeded from Antoninus, although it is manifestly spurious. 
This edict has been appended by a later hand to Justini Apol. i. c. 70, and has been com- 
municated in a different text by Eusebius, iv. c. 13, with a reference to Melito (probably 
to the above passage, which he misunderstood). All that can be said with plausibility in 
defense of that edict may be seen in T. G. Hegelmaier Comm. in edictum Imp. Ant. P. pro 
Christianis. Tubing. 1767. 4. The spuriousness of it, before asserted by J. J. Scaliger, 
Moyle, Thirlby, has been convincingly proved by Is. Haffner de edicto Antonini Pii pro 
Christianis ad commune Asiae. Argentor. 1781.4. Cf. Eichstadt exercitatio Antoniniana 
v. in the Annales acad. Jen. i. 286. The edict contains that explanation of the edict issued 
by Hadrian, which had arisen among the Christians. They believed that the expression 
adversus leges quidquam agere should not be referred to the exercises of Christian wor- 
ship, and accordingly this edict explains it as an émi Tyv jyeuoviav ‘Pupaiwy éyyet- 

_ peiv. From this, therefore, it followed that wl yever accused a Christian as such, with- 
out being able to prove against him such A was liable to punishment as a false 
accuser. . 

5 Modestinus (Dig. lib. xlviii. Tit. 19, 1. 3¢ 
animi superstitione numinis terrerentur, 
relegari rescripsit. Julii Pauli Sententt. recep 
ratione incognitas religiones inducunt, ex quibus : imum moveantur, honestiores 
deportantur, humiliores capite puniantur. On the religious views of Marcus Aurelius and 
his sentiments toward the Christians, see Neander’s K. G. i. i. 177. 

6 Melito in Apolog. ad Mare. Aurel. ap. Euseb. iv. 26: Td yap obd2? mémore yevdouevor, 
viv d.OKetat TO TOY GeoceBGv yévoc, Katvoic éhavvduevov dbyuact Kata THY ’Actay’ of 
yap dvatdcic ovkodavrat Kai TOv GAdoTpiov Epacral, THY éx THY tataypdTwr EyovTec 
agopunv, gavepGc Agorevovor, vixtwp Kai weOnuepav diapwdlovtec Tove pndéev cdik- 
ovvracg.—el 62 Kai mapa cov pH ein 7 BovaAy atrn Kai Td Katvov TovTo dtdtaypa,— 
deduced cov, un replidsiv nude év TorabTy Onuddet Aendacia. Neander K. G. i. i. 184, is 
of opinion that this dsérayywa was certainly issued by the emperor, and is preserved in 
in the Acta Symphoniani apud Ruinart, p. 69. But the very inscription, Aurelius Imp. 
omnibus administratoribus suis atque rectoribus, throws suspicion on the law there given. 
The emperor could not open his proclamation with the name Aurelius. See Semisch, in 
the Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1835, iv. 934; administratores is not an official designation 
of the governors, and the emperor could not call them administratores suos. The emperor 
could have issued no edict against Christians before 177. See Semisch, 1. c. 8. 935, 


is aliquid fecerit, quo leves hominum 
reus ht odi homines in insulam 
2: Qui novas, et usu vel 










ir 
Be 


+ “ 


ae? : 
CHAP. I.—EXTERNAL HISTORY. -§ 42..PERSECUTIONS. 127 


\(167) fell a sacrifice,’ while Justin (166) became a martyr at 
Rome.* But the recently formed churches at Lyons and Vienne 
(177)° suffered most. The supposed miracle of the legio Meli- 
tina (xepavvoBddoc, fulminatrix) (174) could have had the less 
influence on the emperor in favor of the Christians, since so many 
parties ascribed the merit of it to themselves.‘® Under the bar- 
barous Commodus (180-192), the. Christians lived in peace." 


7 Ecclesiae Smyrnensis de martyrio Polycarpi epistola encyclios ap. Euseb. iv. c. 15, 
first published by Ussher, 1647, in a form somewhat longer, then printed in Cotelerii Patr. 
apost. and in Ruinart. On the relation of the two recensions, see Danz de Eusebio, 
p- 130, ss. 

§ Acta martyrii Justini Philos. apud Ruinart, nova interpretatione, annotationibus 
atque disquisitionibus illustrata ab A. S. Mazochio in Gallandii Bibl. vett. patr. T. i. p. 
707, ss. Semisch on the year of Justin Martyr's death in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1835, 
iv. 907. 

® Ecclesiarum Viennensis et Lugdunensis epistola ad ecclesias Asiae Phrygiaeque de 
passione martyrum suorum ap. Euseb. H. E. v. 1-3. To what a height the rage of the 
heathen proceeded, is proved, c. i. § 6, by the violation of the ancient law, de servo in 
dominum quaeri non licere, Cic. pro Dejot.c.1. Tacit. Annal. ii. 30. Digest. lib. xlviii. 
Tit. 18, de quaestionibus. ; 

10 The heathen writers ascribe the phenomenon partly to the conjurations of the 
Aegyptian Arnuphis (Dio Cassius in excerpt. Xiphilini, xxi. 8. Suidas s. v. lovAcavéc), 
partly to the prayer of Marcus (Capitolinus in vita Mare. Aurel. c. 24. Themistius in 
Orat. xv. p. 191, ed. Harduini). The emperor himself expresses his opinion on a coin on 
which Jupiter is represented hurling his lightning against the barbarians lying on the 
ground (Eckhel Numism. iii. 61). Cf. Claudianus de sexto consulatu Honorii, v. 342. Sim- 
ilar occurrences are related of Alexander, Curt. iv. 7, 13 ; of Marius, Orosii Hist. v. 15; and 
Hosidius, Dio Cass. lx. § 9. The Christians, in like manner, ascribed the merit to them- 
selves, cf,Claudius Apollinaris ap. Euseb. v.5. Tertulliani ad Scapul. c. 4, and especially 
Apologet. c. 5: At nos e contrario edimus protectorem, si litterae M. Aurelii—requirantur, 
quibus illam Germanicam sitim, Christianorum forte militum praecationibus impetrato 
imbri, discussam contestatur. Qui sicut non palaum ab ejusmodi hominibus poenam 
dimovit, ita alio modo palam dispersit, adjecta etiam accusatoribus damnatione, et 
quidem tetriore. This writing, falsely ascribed to M. Aurelius, was afterward annexed 
-to Justin Martyr’s Apolog. i. In it all accusation of the Christians is forbidden under 
punishment of death by fire. The same thing is found in Edictum ad commune Asiae, 
note 4. 

1 Marcia, concubine of Commodus, was favorable to the Christians (Dio Cassius, xxii. 
4). On the martyrdom of Apollonius, see Euseb. H. E. v. 21; Hieron. Catal. c. 42. Ac- 
cording to Jerome, he was betrayed by a slave Severus; according to Eusebius, his 
accuser was immediately put to death, dre uy Gav efdv Hv Kata BactAckdv bpov Tove Tv 
Toavde unvutac. M.de Mandajors (Histoire de l’acad. des inscript. tom. 18, p. 226) thinks 


_ that the slave was put to death as the betrayer of his master, according to an old law 


renewed by Trajan; but that the occurrence had been misunderstood by the Christians, 
and had given rise to the tradition which is found in Tertullian and in the Edictum ad 
com{n. Asiae (see above note 10), that an emperor at this period had decreed the punish- 
ment of death for denouncing a Christian. So also Neander K. G. i. i. 201. Certainly 
such alaw against the denunciation of masters by slaves was passed under Nerva (Dio 
Cassius, Ixviii. p. 769. Cf. Capitolinus in vita Pertinac, c. 9. Digest. lib. xlix. tit. 14, L 2, 
§ 6): om the contrary, it was also a law (Julius Paulus Sententt. receptt. tit. 16, § 4): 
servo, qui ultro aliquid de domino confitetur, fides non accommodatur (cf. Digest. lib. xlviii. 


tit. 18, 1. 1, § 5 u. § 16, 1.9,§ 1); and though the case of high treason (causa Majestatis) was 
i 


/ 


< > 
128 FIRST PERIOD.—DIYV. IL—A.D. 117-193. 


SECOND CHAPTER 


HERETICS. 


§ 43. 


JEWISH CHRISTIANS. 
(Comp § 32.) 


Gieseler’s Abhandl. v. d. Nazariern u. Ebioniten, Staudlin’s u. Tzschirner’s Archiv. Bd. 4. 
St. 2, S. 325, 


The Jewish Christians in Palestine were severely persecuted 
by Bar Cochab (§ 38), because they would not attach them- 
selves to him ;' and they must afterward also undergo the same 
oppression as the Jews generaly, from whom they were not 
externally distinguished. These circumstances caused many of 
them, now that a church of heathen converts had been collected 
in Jerusalem, where they were forbidden to remain, to separate 
themselves entirely from Judaism, and to join the Christian 
community.’ Still, however, the different parties of Jewish 
Christians * continued down to the fourth century, and even later. 
In what way the Nazarenes and the Gentile Christians still 
looked upon one another as orthodox, is evident from the expla- 


excepted, yet then the punishment of the slaves also was remitted, if they had made a 
well-grounded accusation (Cod. Justinian. lib. ix. tit. 2, 1.20). Comp. on all these laws, 
Gothofredus in comm. ad Cod. Theodos. lib. x. tit. 10, c.17. J. A. Bachii D. Trajanus, sive 
de legibus Trajani Imp. Lips. 1747. 8. p. 73, ss. According to these principles of law, 
therefore, either Apollonius only, or his slave only, could have heen put to death, but in no 
case both. Jerome does not say either that Severus was the slave of Apollonius, or that 
he was executed ; and since Eusebius grounds this execution expressly on a supposititious 
law, it may have belonged only to the oriental tradition, which may have adduced this 
instance in support of the alleged law. 

1 Justin. Apol. i. c. 31. Euseb. in Chronico. Hieron. Catal. c. 21. 

2 Euseb. iy. 5, enumerates down to this time fifteen bishops of Jerusalem belonging to 
the circumcision. Probably during the dispersion of the church several of them were con- 
temporary. Ibid. c. 6. Cf. Sulpic. Sever. Hist. sacr. ii. 31. Militum cohortem (Hadridnus) 
custodias in perpetuum agitare jussit, quae Judaeos omnes Hierosolymae aditu arceret. 
Quod quidem christianae fidei proficiebat, quia tum paene omnes Christum Deum sub le- 
gis observatione credebant. Nimirum id Domino ordinante dispositum, ut legis servitus 
a libertate fidei atque ecclesiae tolleretur. Ita tum primum Marcus ex gentilibus apud 
Hierosolymam episcopus fuit. 

® See respecting them above, § 32. 


> 


CHAP. IL—HERETICS. § 44. GNOSTICS. 129 


nations of Hegesippus on his journey to Rome, whither he ar- 
rived under bishop Anicetus (157-161).* But since the Gen- 
tile Christians looked upon the Nazarenes as weak Christians, 
on account of their adherence to the Mosaic law,° the connection 
between them became less and less intimate, the knowledge of 
their creed more indistinct; but at the same time, since they 
did not keep pace with the progressive development of doctrine 
in the catholic church, the actual difference between the two 
parties was greater, until at length Epiphanius (about 400) 
went so far as to include the Nazarenes in his list of heretics 
(Haer. xxix.). 


§ 44, 


GNOSTICS. 


Sources. Irenaeus adv. Haereses (especially against Valentinus). Tertullianus adv. Mar- 
cionem libb. v. ; de Praescriptionibus haereticorum; adv. Valentinianos ; contra Gnosti- 
cos scorpiacum. Epiphanius adv. Haereses. Clemens Alex. and Origen in many passa- 
ges. The work of the neo-Platonic Plotinus rpéc¢ Tove yvwortkotc, i.e., Ennead. ii. lib. 9 
(ed. G. A. Heigl. Ratisbonae. 1832. 8. Comp. Creuzer in the theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1834, ii. 
337. Baur’s Gnosis, S. 417). 

Isaac de Beansobre Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme. Amsterd. 1734 and 
39,2 7T.4. J. L. Moshemii de rebus Christian. ante Const. M. comm. p. 333, ss. Walch’s 
Ketzerhistorie, i. 217. (F'. Miinter’s) Versuch iiber die kirch]. Alterthiimer der Gnostiker. 
Anspach. 1790. 8. E. A. Lewald Comm. de doctrina gnostica. Heidelberg. 1818.8. Aug. 
Neander’s genetische Entwickelung d. vornehmstén gnostischen Systeme. Berlin. 1818. 
8. (Comp. my Review in the Hall. A. L. Z. April, 1823, S. 825, ff.). Neander’s K. G.i. ii. 
632. Histoire critique du Gnosticisme par J. Matter, 2 tom. Paris. 1828. 8. (Comp. my 
Review in the theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1830, ii. 378, ff). Die christl. Gnosis, od. d. 
christ]. Religionsphilosophie in ihrer geschichtl. Entwicklung v. Dr. F. Baur. Tibingen 
1835. 8. Dr. H. Ritter’s Gesch. d. christ]. Philosophie (Hamburg. 1841) i. 111. _ [An In- 
quiry into the heresies of the apostolic age, by E. Burton, D.D. Oxford. 1829.] 


The tendency of theological speculation, which was before 
apparent in Cerinthus (§ 36), appeared, at the commencement 
of this period, completely developed in the different Syrian and 
Egyptian systems.’ The philosophical basis of this speculation 


4 Eusebius iv. 22. Hegesippus had conferred with many bishops, particularly with 
Primus in Corinth and Anicetus at Rome and testifies on this point : év éxdory dé dvadoxp 
kal ty éxdotn x6Ae1 ob two exer, O¢ 6 vogog Knpbrrer Kat of mpodATat Kai 6 Képtoc. The 
Nazarenes might find the life of the Gentile Christians conformed to the law, because the 
latter observed the precepts of Noah, see § 17, note 7, § 26, note 6, An Ebionite would 
have Tequired the observance of the Mosaic law: Against Baur (Tibinger Zeitschr. 1831, 
iv. 171) and Schwegler (Montanismus, 8S. 276), who thinks that he was an Ebionite, see 
Schliemann’s Clementinen, S. 428. 

5 Justin. Dial. cum Tryphone, c. 47. 

2 Sources of Guosis, aig lL. ¢. p. 60, ss. The church fathers derived it from the hea- 

VoL. IL—9 


130 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV: Il—A.D. 117-193. 


was the old question, 760ev +0 xaxév.2 In proportion as the idea 
of the highest divinity had developed itself, the less did philoso- 
phy believe itself right in venturing* to consider him as a world- 
creator (dnusovpyé¢),* and the more strongly was it disposed to 
derive the imperfect. good in the world from lower beings, but 


then philosophy, especially from Platonism (Tert. adv. Hermog. c. 8: haereticorum patri- 
archae philosophi. De anima, c. 23: Plato omnium haereticorum condimentarius), and 
class the theosophic fantasies with the heathen myths. Down to Mosheim, most writers 
were in fayor of the Platonic origin of Gnosis. So also Tiedemann Geist der speculativen 
Philosophie, iii. 96. Derivation from the Jewish Cabbala, Jo. Croji conjecturae in quaedam 
loca Origenes, Irenaei, &c., appended to Grabe’s Irenaeus. F'. Buddei diss. de haeresi 
Valentiniana, annexed to the Introd. ad histor. philos. Hebraeorum, ed. 2. Halae. 1720. 8. 
p. 619, ss. Jac. Basnage Histoire des Juifs, liv. iii. p. 718, ss. From an oriental philosophy 
(=x), especially Mosheim: comp. F. Licke in Schleiermacher’s, De Wette’s, u. Liicke’s 
theol. Zeitschr. ii. 138. From the Zend-system, Lewald, 1. c. p. 106, ss. Comp. on the 
other side, A. L. Z. April, 1823, S. 828. The writings of Zoroaster, to which some Gnos- 
tics appeal (Porphyrius in vita Plotini, p. 10. Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 304), are unquestion- 
ably of Greek origin. From the Buddhist doctrines, by J. J. Schmidt tber die Verwandt- 
schaft der gnostisch-theosoph. Lehren mit d. Religionssystemen des Orients, vorziiglich des 
Buddhaismus. Leipzig. 1828.4to. Comp. his treatises on Buddhism in the Mémoires de 
VY Académie impériale des sciences de S. Petersbourg vi. Série. Sciences polit. Histoire, 
Philologie. T. i. livr. ii. (1830), p. 89; livr. iii. p. 221, T. ii. livr. i. (1832) p. 1, 41. (See theol. 
Studien u. Krit. Jahrg. 1830, ii. 374.) According to Mohler (Vers. uber d. Ursprung d. Gnos- 
ticismus, in his Schriften u. Aufsatzen, i. 403), Gnosis proceeded directly and entirely from 
Christianity, and from a practical motive, viz. from an exaggerated contempt of the world, 
which afterward endeavored to lay a speculative foundation for itself, and for this purpose 
applied all that was useful in the older systems of philosophy, theosophy, and mythology. 
According to Baur (Gnosis, 8. 36), Gnosis, has borrowed its material substance from the reli- 
gions which were given historically, its chief object being to inquire into and define the re- 
lation in which those historical elements stood to one another. Its first elements were 

_formed among the Alexandrian Jews. Persian dualism, platonism, and Alexandrian phi- 
losophy of religion, have had their influence in originating the Christian Gnosis. It is an 
attempt to conceive the entire course of the world as a series of elements in which the 
absolute spirit becomes objective to himself, and is reconciled with himself, and has there- 
fore nothing more similar than the Hegelian philosophy of religion. (Comp. this author’s 
Krit. Studien tiber d. Begriff d: Gnosis, in the theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1837, iii. 511.) [An Inquiry 
into the Heresies of the apostolic age. By E. Burton, D.D. Oxford. 1829. 8vo.] 

2 Tertull. de Praescript. haeret. c.7: Eaedem materiae apud haereticos et philosophos 
volutantur, iidem retractatus implicantur, unde malum et quare? et unde homo et quomo- 
do? et quod proxime Valentinus proposuit, unde deus? Buseb. Hist. eccl. v. 27, zoAv- 
OpbAAnrov mapa Toic alpeotérare Cyrnua TO TOOEr 7 KaKia. 

3 Even according to Plato (Timaeus p. 41), only the divine in man was created by the 
highest God, who then leaves it to the roi¢ véotg Oeoig Gavdt@ OvyTov mpocvdaiverv. So 
also Philo (de mundi opif. p. 16, de ling. conf. p. 346, de profug. p. 460), in speaking of the 
creation of man, makes the rd dAoyov, 76 OvyTov judy THe Wuyxie wépog be created by an- 
gels. But Lucretius (70 b.c.) de rerum natura v. 196 ss. :— 

Quod si jam rerum ignorem primordia quae sint, 
Hoc tamen ex ipsis coeli rationibus ausim 
Confirmare, alieisque ex rebus reddere multeis, 
Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam 
Naturam rerum: tanta stat praedita culpa. 


4 Anucovpyé¢ is the former of the world even in Xenoph. Memorab. i. 4,7, and in Plato 
Timeeus, p. 41, more frequently in the younger Platonists. 


CHAP. IL—HERETICS. § 44. GNOSTICS. 181 


the evil from an evil principle. Among the speculating Chris-) 
tians, these ideas obtained some hold from the Christian view 
taken of Christianity, Judaism, aud heathenism, as the complete, 
the incomplete, and the evil. These three religions appeared as 
revelations of three corresponding principles, which were first per- 
ceived in their true light from the position of Christianity. Mat- 
ter (647) was the evil principle, which had revealed itself in hea- 
thenism, and was there conceived as having sometimes an unde- 
veloped, sometimes a developed consciousness.® The creation of 
the world belonged, according to Gen. i., to the God of the Jews, 
who, commonly regarded as the first of the seven planet-princes,’ 
proceeded from the highest God only at an infinite distance, and 
was as incapable of willing the perfect as of restraining the oppo- _, 
sition of matter. On the other hand, Christ revealed the high- 


5 Platarchus de Iside et Osiride, c. 45: Otre yap év dvtyore cdpact Tag TOU NavTo¢ 
apyuc Geréov, oc Anubxpitoc kai’ Exixovpog” ovte drotou Snutovpyov bAne Eva Adyov Kai 
uiav xpévotav, @¢ of Stwixol, meprywouévnv andvtwv Kai Kpatodcav’ ddbvaroyv yap 7 
diaipov érioiv, 6rov mavTwr, 7) xpnoTov, bxov pndevoc 6 Ged¢ aitioc, éyyevéobat. 
Hence the ancient opinion of the wise men is this: ’A76 dveiy évavtiov dpyav, kai dveiv 
dvtindAwr dvvauewv6, Te Bioc uiKxTO¢, 6, Te KOouoC—aveuadoc Kai xotKinog yéyovE Kai 
wetaBorac xdcac dexyéucvoc. C.46: Kat doxei robto T0ic wAEiaToLe Kai codwraroic. Nopi- 
fovat yap of uév Geode eivar Oto, cabarep avTitéxvove, Tov uev yap dyabar, Tov dé dadAwv 
dnutoupyév: of dé Tév pév dpeivova Oedv, Tov dé Erepov Aaivova kadotvetyv. Zoraaster calls 
the former Ornvuzd, the latter Ahriman, uécov dé dudotv tov Mébpnv eivar’ 61d Kai MiOpny 
Tlépoa: tov peciryy dvoudlovow édidake pév 76 ebxruia Giev Kal yaptorhpla, TH 08 aro- 
Tpdraa Kai oxvOperd. C. 48: Xaddaior d2 Tév rAavyTar Tove Geode yevéoOat, od¢ Ka- 
Aodat, dio pév dyalouvpyovc, dio de Kaxorolobc, wécove dé Tove. Tpeic armodaivovoet Kat 
«<otvotc. This dualism is found also among the philosophers, even in Plato, who speaks 
in the clearest manner concerning it, év toi¢ véuoic (Leg. x. p. 669, and Tim. p. 528) od 
ud Woyg Kiveicbat Tov Kécpov, GAAA TAciocw iowe, dvoiv dé TavTuc oiK AGTTOCW~ bev 
Thy pév dyaboupyéor viva, tHv dé évavtiav TabTy, Kai TOv évavTiov Onulovpyév* droAciret, 
SE Kai tpiztny Tivd peTasd dbo, odk dyvyor, obd2 GAoyor, obd? dkivytov &£ abtHe,—dAW’ 
évakeiuévyy audoiv éxeivarc, Edteuévny O8 THe dpetvovoc Gel, kai Tofotcav, Kai SiéKovoay. 

, Similar to it is the Egyptian doctrine, in which Osiris is the good, Typhon the evil princi- 
ple, and Isis that third nature. Numenius zepi tdéyafod (in Euseb. Praep. evang. xi. 18) 
shows that the Demiurgus must be distinguished from the highest God, who, as he thinks, 


‘ resembles the Logos of Philo: Tév uév rpdrov Gedy dpyov eiva:, épywv SupndvTov Kai 


Sacihéa, Tov Snuiovpytkdv dé Ocov Hyeuovety, dv obpavod iévra. dia d2 TobTOV Kal 6 ordAo¢ 
quiv tort, KaTw TOD vod TEuopévov év dte=6dw TaoL TOI¢ KOLVwVRGAL CVVTETAyLEVOLE. 
And ina preceeding passage: Kai yap obre dnurovpyeiv gore xpeav Tov TpOTOV, Kal TOD 
Snetovpyobvroc dé Geod yp civat Kai vouitecOar ratépa Tov TpOToV Bedv. 

“$ Analogous to the Jewish-Christian view, according to which the heathen gods were 
evil angels. Keilii Opusc. ii. 584, 601. 

7 The Jewish-Christian opinion of the division of the world among angels corresponded 
‘to this. Keil. 1.c. p. 480. 

* Origen de Princ. 1. iv. (Philocalia, ed. Spencer, p. 6): Of re dxd tdv aipéceov 
dvaywoécKorter 76+ Tip éxxéxavras 2x Tod Ovuod pov (Jer. xv. 14, then: Exod. xx. 5, 
1 Reg. xv. 11, Es. xlv. 8, Am. iii. 6, Mich. i. 12, 1 Reg.sxvi. 15), kai pupa dca tobvros 
wapanAfowa, aniorpoa wiv Oc Geod raig ypadaicg ob TeToAuHKacl, micTebovtes da 


132 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. Il.—A.D. 117-193. 


est divinity, which, elevated above all being, had produced out of 
himself only the world of light, a world of blessed spirits. Hu- 
man spirits, mvetpata, are rays of light proceeding from this 
blessed spirit, whose object is consequently to free themselves 
from the fetters of the Demiurgus and matter, in order that 
they may return into the world of light. To effect this was the 
object of Christ, who was thought by most Gnostics to be one 
of the highest spirits of light. As the means of doing so, he 
left behind to his genuine disciples, the yyaour. These general 
ideas were carried out in special ways in the separate schools, on 
which account they received different forms and modifications. 
Among the Alexandrian Gnostics, traces of the Platonic phi- 
losephy are most obvious ;° among the Syrian, the influence of 
Parsism was superadded. Among the former, the emanation 
doctrine was pre-eminent ; among the latter, dualism.’ In alk 
the schools, however, there remained a wide field for the play of 
fancy in making vivid to the perception the internal relations 
of the world of light, the origin of the Demiurgus from it, and 


_the creation of the world. For this purpose the Alexandrian 


Gnostics employed, but only as an insecure guide, a representa- 
tion which was borrowed from the Platonic doctrine of ideas, that 
the visible world, with its germs of life, is only an image and 
impression of the world of light.* With this view the allegorical 


abrac elvat Tov Onutovpyod, @ "lovdator Aatpedbovow, @Aoycav oc aterove Kai obk 
ayabod tvyydvovrorg Tod Snutovpyod, Tov cuTHpa éExidednunKévar TEAELTEpoOY KaTayyéA- 
Aovra Gedy, Gy gaol uy Tov Snutovpyov Tryxavey, Staddpwc TEpl TOdTOV KLVObmEVOL, Kal 
amas dmootdvtec Tov SOnutovpyod, b¢ éotiv dyévynrog povoc Oedc, dvarAacpoic éavTove 
éxidedGkacl, pvborolobyTec éavToic brobécetc, Kal’ Gc olovtat yeyovévar TA BAEropeva, 
kal &repd tiva py PAeTOueva, Grep 7 WuyxH adTav dvedwhoroincev. New Testament 
passages also may have been cited by the Gnostics in favor of the distinction, ex. gr. Joh. 
xii. 31, xiv. 30; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Gal. iii. 19; 1 Cor. ii. 6, 7; Eph. iii. 9, ff. 

9 Plotin. cont. Gnost. c.6: “Odwe yap abroic ra pév mapa Tod TlAdTwvog elAnzrat: 
ra 0@, 60a KatvoTouovaly, iva idiay d:A0codiay Odvrat, taidta tw tie GAnbeiac ebpnrat. 

10 Neander divides the Gnostics into such as adhered to Judaism, and anti-Jewish: see 
the Hall. A. L. Z. April, 1823, S. 831, and Baur’s Gnosis, S. 97, ff The latter assumes 
three classes; 1. Those who brought Christianity into closer connection with Judaism and 
heathenism; 2. Those who made a strict separation of Christianity and Judaism from 
heathenism; 3. Those who identified Christianity and Judaism, and opposed both to hea- 
thenism in the form of Gnosis (the pseudo-Clement. system). 

11 Philo de Somniis, p.593: Tov éx tdv ideGv ovotabévra—Kécpov vonrov ob« éEveotiv 
GAAwe KataAaBeiv, dtc pH tx tig Tod aicOyTod Kai dpwuévov TobTov peTavaBdccwc. 
So, according to Hebr. ix. 23, the earthly sanctuary contains trodeiyuata rov év TOI 
ovpavoic. Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. p. 593: Eixay tij¢ obpaviov éxxAnoiag 4 éxiyevoc 
So, particularly in the system of the Valentinians, Iren.ii.7. It is the Sophia, quae 
emittit similitudines et imagines eorum, quae sursum sunt. C.8: In honorem eorum, 
quae sursum sunt, facta sunt haec secundum illorum imaginem. 


CHAP. II—HERETICS. § 45. ALEXANDRIAN GNOSTICS. 133 


interpretation of holy scripture already current could be readily 
united, and employed in an arbitrary manner. Moreover, all 
the Gnostics appealed particularly to a secret doctrine handed 
down to them from the apostles. The principle of the gnostic 
morality, freedom from the fetters of the Demiurgus, and of 
matter, led to rigid abstinence, and a contemplative life. But 
when the pride of dogmatism among the later Gnostics had sti- 
fled the moral sense, a part of them fell upon theexpedient of giving 
out the moral Jaw to be only a work of the Demiurgus, for the 
sake of indulgence in sensual excasses.’* 





§ 45. 
({CONTINUATION.) 1. ALEXANDRIAN GNOSTICS. 


I. Basilides of Alexandria (about 125) represented seven dv- 
vdwecc in particular, as emanating from the great original (ded¢ / 
appntoc), VizZ., vod¢, Adyoc, Ppdvyotc, codia, divamtc, Stxaoobvn, eipivn. 
These composed the first kingdom of spirits (otpavéc). From 
| this emanated a second, and so on until there were 365 king- 
doms of spirits, each of which was successively an imperfect im- 
pression of the preceding. The total idea of these spiritual 
kingdoms, i. e., God so far as he has revealed himself, in con- 
. tradistinction from God in himself, he called ’ABpacaé.' The 
ae seven angels of the lowest heaven, and especially the first among 
them, 6 dpywy, the God of the Jews, are the creators of the 
eS, world. ‘To effect the return of human spirits to the world of 


12 Clement Alex. Strom. iii. p. 529: Alpécesp—7j—ddtaddpuc Gyv diddoKovew; 7 Td 
dréprovev dyovoa, éyxpateav did dvaceBeiacg Kai didatexOnuoctyyc KaTayyéAAovel. 
Cf. ii. 411: Plotinus contra Gnosticos, c.15: 'O d& Adyo¢g obro¢g (rav Tyvwarikav)—rHyv 
; Tpovorav peupdusvoc, Kal mavtac vépoug Tove évradOa dtiydoac, Kal rRv dpetyv—zé, Te 
‘ Gudpovetyv TodTO év yéAwrt Oéuevoc, iva undév Kaddv évraiba 67 b¢0cin brapyov, aveide 
76, Te owdpovely Kai THY év Toig ZOect chugduTov Sikatocbyyv, THY TeAovpévyy Ex. Adyov 
kai doxnotwe'—Gore abtoic kataheinxecbat tiv idoviv, Kai Td Tept abtov¢, Kal TO ob 
E KoLvov mpd¢ GAdouc dvOpdrove, Kai Td THE ypeiac povor. 

1 J. J. Bellermann Versuch iiber die Gemmen der Alten mit dem Abraxas-Bilde. Berlin 
1817-19. 3 Sticke. U.F. Kopp Paleographia. critica, P. iii. et iv. Manhemii. 1829. 4. 
Good impressions of many Abraxas-gems are appended to Matter’s Hist. du Gnosticisme; 
but many of them are not of Gnostic origin. See theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1830. Heft. 
2. §. 403, ff. *AGpacds appears as a powerful incantation-name of God, as well as the 
Jewish Jao, Sabaoth, Adonai, even in magical formulae whose origin is. obviously heathen- 
Egyptian, see C. J. C. Reuvens lettres A M. Letronne sur les Papyrus bilingues et grecs 
du Musée de Leide (i Leide. 1830. 4). Prem. lettre, p. 22, 64. 


~~ ee “tet es meee Hae h 


134 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. II.—A.D. 117-193. 


light (dtoxardoraotc), the vov¢e united itself with the man Jesus 
at his baptism. Hence the followers of Basilides celebrated the 
festival of the baptism as the epiphany (ra émipama, on the 11th 
Tybi, the 6th of January).? The man alone endured the suf- 
ferings, which, like all human sufferings, were expiations of 
guilt contracted, though in a former period of existence. The 
épywv of Basilides is not evil, but only circumscribed; and 
therefore he subjects himself to the higher arrangement of the 
world, as soon as it is made known to him. The later followers 
of Basilides,* on the contrary, conceived him to be an open ad- 
versary of the world of light, and thus rejected Judaism entirely ; 
in which, however, Basilides could perceive types and prepara- 
tions for something higher. In like manner, they received into 
their system the views of the Docetae, and contrived by sophisms 
to make their moral doctrine more loose. They rendered them- 
selves particularly odious, by supposing that they could deny 
the erucified One; thus they escaped persecution. The party was 
still in existence about 400.* 

II. Still more ingenious is the system of Valentinus, who came 
from Alexandria to Rome about 140, and died in Cyprus about 
160.° From the great original (according to him vOé¢, zpo- 
Taétwp, tpoapy7), with whom is the consciousness of himself (é- 
vota, ovyj) emanate in succession male and female*aeons® (vov¢ 


2 According to Jablonski de origine festi nativitatis Christi diss. ii. § 8, ss. (Opuscul. ed. 
te Water, iti. 358), they borrowed this day from the Egyptians, who celebrated on it the 
inventio Osiridis. This application of the Egyptian festival, however, rests on an unfor- 
tunate alteration of the text in Plut. de Isis et Osir.c. 39. The festival of the inventio 
-Osiridis occurred in November. See Wyttenbach. animadverss. in Plut. Moralia, ii. i. 225. 
Wieseler’s Chronolog. Synopse der Evang. S. 136. In like manner Jablonski incorrectly 
infers from Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. p. 340, that the followers of Basilides celebrated not 
only the baptism, but also the birth of Jesus, on the Epiphany. 

3 The genuine system of Basilides is given in Clemens Alexandrinus; that of his later 
adherents in Irenaeus, see Neander gnost. Systeme, S. 31. 

* The sources of information concerning Basilides are: the tradition of Glaukias, an 
interpreter (épunvetc) of the apostle Peter, and a tradition of the apostle Matthias — 
Prophets BapxdBac, Bapxdéd, Tapydép—He wrote twenty-four books é&yynrixd, which 
may have also been called his gospel. 

_ 5§ J, F. Buddeus de Haeresi Valentiviana appended to Introductio ad historiam philos. 
Ebraeorum, ed. 2. Halae. 1720. 8, p. 573-736. It is remarkable that Valentinus not only 
received the New Testament, but made constant allegorical use of it in his system. Thus 
he formed his system of Aeons for the most part after John i. Irenaeus i. 8, 5—His 
secret doctrine is from Theodades, a disciple of Paul; his hymns, discourses, and letters 
are for the most part lost: From the work preserved in Coptic, entitled Fidelis Sophia, 
has been published D. Fr. Minter Odae gnosticae, thebaice et latine. Havniae. 1812. 
* On aidy see Numenius ap. Euseb, Praep. evang. xi. 10: Td dy obre xord jy, obre 
mot? yévntar* dA” torw det év xpovy mi Gpropévy, TS eueotGre pdve. rToirov pew 





CHAP. IlL—HERETICS. § 45. ALEXANDRIAN GNOSTICS. 135 


or povoyevne and dAqera, Adyoo and aAjOeta, Adyoo and fwH, dv- 
Opwxoc and éxxAnota, &c.), so that 30 aeons together (distin- 
‘guished into the dydodc, dexdée and dwdexdc) form the mAfjpwpa.? 
From the passionate striving of the last aeon, the codia, to unite 
with Bythos, itself, arises an untimely being (7 xétw oodia, évOd- 
uno, ’Axawod, ¢. é€., DiNIND), which, wandering about outside 
the pleroma, communicates the germ of life to matter, and 
forms the dnusovpyo¢ of psychical material, who immediately 
creates the world. In this three kinds of material are mixed— 
TO mvevpaTiKov, 7 yoytKdv, TO bAckév. The goal of the course 
of the world is, that the two first should be separated from the 
last, and that 76 mvevp. should return to the pleroma, 76 puyixdr 
into the réro¢ peodtntoc, where the Achamoth now dwells. In 
the mean time, two new aeons, Christ and the Holy Spirit, had 
arisen, in order to restore the disturbed harmony in the pleroma ; 
then there emanated from all the aeons, Jesus (owr#p), who, 
as future associate (ovgvyoc) of the Achamoth, shall lead back 
into the pleroma this and the pneumatic natures. The owr7jp 
united itself at the baptism with the psychical Messiah promised 
by the Demiurgus. Just so is the letter of the doctrines of 
Jesus for psychical men. On the other hand, the spirit intro- 
duced by the Soter or Saviour, is for the spiritual. These 
theosophic dreams were naturally capable of being molded in 
many different ways; and, accordingly, among Valentinus’s dis- 
ciples are found many departures from their teacher. The 
most important of his followers were Heracleon,’ Ptolemy,’ and 
Marcus. 

III. To the system of Valentinus was nearly allied that of 
the Ophites,’° who, perhaps, existed as a party in Egypt even 
before the Valentinians."' Their pleroma is simpler than that of 


ovv Tov évectOra el Tic éOéAer Kadsiv aldva, kay cvuBodAouat. (I have believed it 
necessary to place the yy, which stands in the usual text before yévyrai, before 
piouévw). Thus among the Gnostics aidvec are developments of the Divine Being, who, 
as such, are elevated above the limitations of time. 

* On rAjpopa see Baur’s Gnosis, 8. 157. 

_ ® Ofhis Commentary on John there are numerous fragments in the commentary of Origen. 

* His epistola ad Floram apud Epiphanius Haer. xxxiii. A. Stieren de Ptolemaei 
Gnostici ad Floram epist. P. 1, Jenae. 1843, distinguishes in the letter two parts proceeding 
from different authors, both which, however, could not have been written by Ptolemy. 

#0 J. L. vy. Mosheim Versuch einer unparteiischen u. griindlichen Ketzergeschichte. 
Geschichte der Schlangenbrider der ersten Kirche. 2te Aufl.. Helmstddt. 1748. 4: 
A. H. L. Fuldner Comm. de Ophitis. Part 1. Rintelli. 1834.4. (A school programm.) 

‘ Origen c. Celsum. vi. § 28, ed. Spenc. p. 294: ’Ogiavol tocottov drodéovet Tot 


136 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IL—AD. 117-193. 


Valentinus. From the Bythus emanate the first man, the sec- 
ond man or the son of man, the Holy Spirit. ‘The last gives 
birth, by means of the first two, to the perfect masculine light- 
nature, the Christ, and the defective female codia, ’Ayauod, 
mpotveroc. The creator of the world (’IaAdaBa00, probably 832 
nain2, son of chaos), the first of the seven planet princes, is am- 
bitious and malevolent, and is therefore involved in continual 
strife with his mother Sophia, who endeavors to deprive him of 
the pneumatic natures. The ’O¢cdpuopdoc, the ruler of Hyle, 
and the cause of all evil, is an image of him. The christology 
of the Ophites is altogether like that of Valentinus, with this 
difference, that Jesus is the psychical, Christ the pneumatic 
Messiah.*? The Ophites were divided into various sects (ex. 
er. Sethians, Cainites). One of them looked for the Sophia in 
the serpent of Genesis, and hence the name of the whole party. 
This continued the longest of all the Gnostic sects. (So late 
as 530 a.p. Justinian enacted laws against them, Cod. lib. i. 
tit. v. 1, 18, 19, 21). 

IV. Carpocrates struck out an entirely different way.'* In 
his view, Jesus was a mere man, like Pythagoras, Plato, and 
Aristotle, who had set an example of the mode in which the 
Gnostic must free himself from the Demiurgi (dyyeior xoopo- 
movoi), and unite with the highest divinity (wovdc). As the 
Carpocratians had portraits of those Grecian philosophers and 
of Jesus in their sanctuaries, so they built in Cephalenia a tem- 
ple to Epiphanes,"* a youth seventeen years old, the son of 


sivat Xpiotiavol, Gore ovK EXatrov KéAcov xaryyopeiv abrov¢e tov "Incod. Kai pz 
mporepov mpootecbai tiva éxi 7d cvvédpiov éavTdr, dav uy dpac OjTat Kata Tod "Igcod. 
Mosheim (1. c. 8. 19 and S. 127) infers from this that the Ophites formed a more ancient 
Jewish sect, which afterward adopted Christianity only in part. On the other side see 
A. L. Z. April, 1823. 8. 846. 

12 On the diéypaupa of the Ophites apud Origines c. Celsum, vi. ed. Spencer. p. 291, ss. 
see Mosheim, |. c. 8. 79, ff. 178, ff. 

13 G. H. F. Fuldner de Carpocratianis, in Ilgen’s historischtheolog. Abhandlungen, 
dritte Denkschrift der hist. theol. Gessellschaft zu Leipzig. 1824. §.180,f— G. Gesenius 
de inscriptione Phoenicio-Graeca in Cyrenaica nuper reperta ad Carpocratianorum ~ 
haeresin pertinente. Halae. 1825. 4. 

14 Fragments of this work wep dixatootvyc preserved by Clemens Alex. Strom. iii. p. 
512, 8. His moral principles: Of véyot, dvOpOzwv duabiav KoAdletv pH dvvdpuevor, rapa- 
vopeiv édidakav’ 7 yap idiétnc Tov véuwv THY KoLvwriay Tod Geiov vouov KaTéTEMEV Kal 
mapatpoyet.—Kowvg 6 Bed¢ dxavta avOpéry notgoac, Kai To OjAv TO Gppert Kowg 
cvvayayar, kai xavl’ dpoiwe Ta Coa KOAARoaC, THY OtKaLoctyyY Gvégnverv Kolvwviay 
per’ icétntoc. Hence, according to page 514, at the conclusion of their agapae, concubitus 
promiscui. 





CHAP. Il—HERETICS. § 46. SYRIAN GNOSTICS. 137 


their founder, after his death. The sects of the Antitactes and 
the Prodiciant, allied to the Carpocratians, were branded like 
it by immoral principles.’® 


§ 46. ; 


(CONTINUATION, 2. SYRIAN GNOSTICS. 


The Syrian Gnostics developed the doctrine of dualism more ~ 


decidedly than the Egyptian, to which the neighborhood of 
Persia may have largely contributed. With this was connected 
their fanatical seeubiaD, | in which they exceeded the Egyptians, 
and their Docetic views.' Saturninus in Antioch, a cotempo- 
rary of Basilides, taught that by the original cause (narip dy- 
vwaroc) the world of spirits was created by successive steps, and 
placed in the lowest gradation the spirits of the seven planets 
(dyyeAor koopoxpazopec). In opposition to them stood the evil 
principle (6 Zaravad¢), who set in antagonism to the race of men 
of light animated by the highest divinity, a race of evil men, 
so that both kinds of men are continued beside one another. 
In order to avoid all contact with the evil principle, the follow- 
ers of Saturninus abstained from marriage and the eating of 
flesh. The wide diffusion of the Gnostic opinions in Syria and 
the countries lying eastward of it may be seen in the case of 
Bardesanes in Edessa (about 172),’ who, although he believed 


15 On the ’Avtitdéxraz cf. Clemens Strom. iii. p. 526. Theodoret. Haer. fab. comp. i. c. 
16: Respecting Ilpdd:xo¢ Clemens, |. c. p. 525. Theodoret, 1. c. i. c.. 6. 

16 The inscriptions which, as pretended, were found in Cyrene, and brought to Malia, 
were regarded at first as Carpocratian (cf. G. Gesenius, |. c.), but were afterward shown to 
be recent fabrications, like many other spurious productions, particularly Eumali Cyrenai- 
ci Hist. Libycae, lib. vi., all of which were made known by the Marquis Fortia d’Urban in 
Avignon. They were meant to confifm the hypotheses which this person had formerly put 
forth respecting an island, Atlantis, in the Mediterranean Sea, which was sunk at the flood, 
in which island a St. Simonian community of goods and wives is said to have prevailed. 
See Boeckh preface to the Berlin Lectionskataloge, Easter, 1832. Gesenius in. the 
Hallische A. L. Z. 1835, August, S. 462. When M. J. R. Pacho, Relation d'un voyage 
dans la Marmarique, la Cyrénaique, &c. Paris. 1827. 4. p. 128, believed that he had 
found in a pit at Lameloudéh, in Cyrenaica, traces referring to a place where the Carpo- 


‘eratians assembled, he was led astray by the opinions at first pronounced on those in- 


scriptions. A cross with a serpent is a common Christian symbol, according to John iii. 
14; and Catholic Christians may as well have used that pit as a place of meeting, like 
those at Massakhit, p. 114. 

1 ALL. Z. April; 1823. 8. 833, ff. 

2 Bar daizon (Bayer hist. Osrh. et Edess. p. 13) lived under the prince Abgar bar 
Maanu, and gave up his book, wep? elwapuévy¢. to Antoninus Verus, of which Euseb. 


- 


138 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I1—A.D. 117-193. 


in two eternal principles, derived evil from the Hyle, and held 
many other Gnostic tenets, was still looked upon as orthodox 
in that place. Cotemporary with him was the Assyrian Ta- 
tian,’ who had been a disciple of Justin Martyr, but after his 
death had returned to his native land, and founded there a 
Gnostic sect, which was chiefly distinguished by abstinence 
(‘Eyxparitat, ‘Ydporapaoréra, Aquarii),* and continued till after 
the fourth century. 


§ 47. 
(CONTINUATION.) 3. MARCION AND HIS SCHOOL.! 


\ The Gnosis of Marcion; the son of a bishop of Stnope, who 
attached himself to the Syrian Cerdo at Rome (between 140 
and 150), and developed there a system of his own, has a char- 
acter quite peculiar. He assumed three moral principles (apyat) ; 
viz., the Ocd¢ dyabdc, the dyuovpyd¢ dikatoc, and the bAn (6 mévn- 
po¢, 6 dtaBoAoc). To free men—who had only to expect from 


praep. Evang. vi. 10, has preserved a fragment (republished in Alexandri Aphrodisiensis, 
Ammonii, Plotini, Bardesanis et Gemisti Plethonis de fato quae supersunt graece, rec. et 
notas adjecit J. C. Orellius. Turici. 1824. 8. p. 202, ss.). He gained over many adherents 
by his hymns. . The fifty-six hymns of Ephraem Syrus against heretics are important for 
the knowledge of his system. Cf. Bardesanes Gnosticus Syrorum primus hymnologus, 
comm. historico-theol. quam scripsit Aug. Habn. Lips. 1819. 8. C. Kuehner Astronomiae 
et astrologiae in doctrina Gnosticorum vestigia, p. i. Bardesanis Gnostici numina astralia. 
Hildburghusae. 1833. 8. 

° Tatianus d. Apologet v. Dr. H. A. Daniel. Halle. 1837. S. 253. Respecting his 
ebayyédiov 61a Tecodpwy, see Credner’s Beitrage zur Einl. in d. biblisch. Schriften, 
i. 437. 

* These names, as well as the appellation Docetae, certainly designate a heresy, which 
was common to many parties; but they appear to have been specially given to the fol- 
lowers of Tatian, because a particular sect-name for*them does not appear. 

1 Particular sources: Tertull. adv. Marcionem libri v—(Pseudo-) Origenis UfaXoyog 
wept tHe el¢ Gedy dp0R¢ micTewe 8. dial. contra Marcionitas (ed. J. R. Westein. Basil. 
1674. 4). The credibility of the fathers respecting Marcion is too much doubted by 
H. Rhode Prolegomenorum ad quaestionem de Evangelio Apostologue Marcionis denuo 
instituendam, cap. i.-iii, Vratislav. 1834. 4. See on the other side Ch. E. Becker 
Examen crit. de l’évangile de Marcion. Premiére partie. Strasbourg. 1837. 4. Works 
on the subject: Neander gnost. Syst. S. 276, ff Aug. Hahn Diss..de gnosi Marcionis 
antinomi. Regiomonti. 4. (Two Christmas programmes of 1820 and 1821.). Ejusd. Anti- 
theses Marcionis Gnostici liber deperditus, nunc quoad ejus fieri potuit restitutus. Re- 
giom. 1823. 8. The same author’s das Evangelium Marcion’s in seiner urspriinglichen 
Gestalt, nebst dem vollstandigsten Beweise dargestellt, dass es nicht selbststindig, son- 
dern ein verstiimmeltés und verfilschtes Lucas-Evangelium war. Koénigsb. 1823. 8. 
Compare my review in the Hall. A. L. Z. Oct. 1823, S. 225, ff. 





& 


CHAP. II—HERETICS. § 47. MARCION. 139 


the Demiurgus, according to the principles of strict justice, 
either condemnation or at most a limited happiness—to free 
them, I say, from such a yoke, Christ suddenly descended into 
Capernaum with the appearance of a body, and proclaimed to 
men the good deity hitherto unknown. ‘Those who believe in 
Christ, and lead a new, holy life, from love to the good deity, 
will be blessed with happiness in his heavenly kingdom, while 
others are left to the strict justice of the Demiurgus. Marcion 
required of the perfect Christians a strictly ascetic life, absti- 
nence from marriage, avoidance of all earthly pleasures, and 
restriction to a few simple articles of diet. But all the disci- 
ples of this school were not “ faithful” (fideles); many continued 
catechumens for a long time. Marcion’s gospel (ebayyéAuov) 
was that of Luke, mutilated according to his system; in addi- 
tion to which, he used ten of the Pauline epistles (4 dxéoroAoc), 
not, however, without corruption.” In a work entitled “ An- 
titheses,” he endeavored to prove the different characters of 
Judaism and Christianity, by means of positions from both set 
over against one another. 

Respecting metaphysical relations, as far as they do not 
affect the moral interests of men, no declarations are found in 
Marcion. His disciples, therefore, borrowed such principles 
partly from the Syrian Gnostics, partly, like Apelles, from the 
Valentinians, ‘so that the school of Marcion was afterward 
divided into many branches.’ 


2 The adulteration was first doubted by J. S. Semler in his paraphrasis epist. ad Galatas. 
Hal. 1779. 8. Prolegom. § 2,3. Then by Chr. F. J. Loeffler Diss., qua Marcionem Pauli 
epistolas et Lucae evangel. adulterasse dubitatur Traj. ad. Viadr. 1788. 4 (reprinted in 
the Commentatt. theol. coll. a Kuinoel et Ruperti, vol. i. p. 180, ss.). On this the hypothesis 
was built upon by H. Corodi, J. G. Eichhorn, and J. E. Ch. Schmidt. Of another opinion is 
Dr. Gratz krit. Untersuchung iiber Marcion’s Evangel. Tiibing. 1818. 8. Comp. especially 
Hahn’s Evang. Marcion’s, &c. Ejusd. Diss. de canone Marcionis. P.i: Regiom. 1824. 4. 
Hjusd. Evang. Marcionis ex auctoritate vett. monumentorum descriptum, in J. C. Thilo 
Cod. apocryph. N. T.i. 401. Becker, 1. c. : 

% Even Rhodon (ap. Euseb. v. 13) says: Ard toiro kal rap’ éavtoic dovpowvot yeyé- 
vac, and yap THE TObTaY ayéAne 'ATEAARC uev—piav apy7v duodoyet'—érepor 62, KIO 
Kat abtic 6 vadrng Mapkiwv, dbo dpyd¢ elonyotvrat'—dA2a 62 Tad Gn’ abtav ext 7d 
Xelpov éSoxeidavrec, od udvov dbo, GAAG Kai Tpeig broriPevTat dbcetc. Comp. A. L. Z.1. 
ce. $. 226, ff The thoroughly practical tendency of the true Marcionites is expressed par- 
ticularly in what Apelles said to Rliodon (1. c.): My deiv dawg éeraler rov Adyov, G22 
Exacrov Gc meiorevke dtapéverv. owlijcecbat yap Tove éxi tov éoravpwmévor HATiKéTag 
dregaivero, pévov tiv év Epyouc dyaboic ebpicxwvta. Td dé TavTwr acagéctaron édoy- 
parilero abt@ xpayua—ri rept tov Oeod. Thus it is not incredible that, as Tertullian, de 
Praeser. ¢. 30, relates, Marcion at the close of his life wished to return to the catholic 
Church. He may have perceived that the practical interests of Christianity were more | 


140 FIRST PERIOD—DIV. I.—AD. 117-193. 


§ 48. 


: MONTANISTS AND ALOGT. 

Defenders of the Montanists are: Nic. Rigaltius in praefat. ad Tertulliani opp. Arnold’s 
Kirchen und Ketzerhistorie, Th. 1, Bd. 2, K. 4, § 44. Gottlieb Wernsdorf de Montanistis 
saeculi secundi haereticis comm. Gedani. 1751. 4. More impartial are: Mosheim de 
rebus Christ. ante Const. M. p. 410, ss. Walch’s Ketzerhist. i. 611. Full of peculiar 
combinations is: Dr. F. C. A. Schwleger’s der Montanismus u. d. christ]. Kirche d. 2ten 
Jahrhbund. Tibingen. 1841. €—M. Merkel’s hist. krit. Aufklarung der Streitigkeit 
der Aloger tber die Apokalypsis. Frankf. u. Leipz. 1782. 8. F. A. Heinichen de 
Alogis, Theodotianis atque Artemonitis. Lips. 1829. 8, Dr. L. Lange’s Gesch. und 
Lebrbegriff der Unitarier. Leipzig. 1831. 8. 156.—Neander’s K. G. i. ii. 877. 


As a peculiar impress is stamped on Christiahity in all 
countries by the national character, so also in Phrygia it could 
not but experience the influence of the popular tendeney to a 
sensuous, enthusiastic worship of deity. The doctrines of su- 
pernatural gifts of the Spirit,’ the renunciation of the earthly, 
and the millennial reign, were susceptible of such development.’ 
These subjects appear to have been peculiar favorites in Phrygia 
very early,’ where the oppression of p*rsecution, and opposition 
to the speculations of the Gnostics, inay have accelerated their 
one-sided development. Accordingly, Montanus,* at Pepuza 
(about 150),° in an ecstatic state,* began to announce, that the 


injured than promoted by his opposition, and that they had a sufficient support even in 
the catholic Church. 

1 As they continued among the Christians even after Justin and Irenaeus. Schwegler, 
5. 94. 

2 As far as Montanism proceeded out of these doctrines, Schwegler designates it as a 
development of Ebionitism, which had been prevalent up to that time in the church; but 
he arbitrarily understands by Ebionitism the entire Jewish basis of Christianity. 

3 Ex. gr. Philip and his daughters in Hierapolis (to whom the Montanist Proculus 
against Caius refers, Euseb. iii. 31), Papias (§ 35, not..7). 

4 According to Didymus de Trin. lib. iii. cap. penult., he had formerly been /epeic 
eldGAov. Jerome Ep. 27 ad Marcellam calls him abscissum et semivirum. He appears 
accordingly to have been a priest of Cybele, a circumstance which must have become of 

importance in respect to his conception of Christianity. Schwegler, S. 243, would have 
Montanus to be a mythie personage, but younger contemporaries, the anonymous writer 
in Euseb. vy. 17, and Apollonius, 1. ¢. v. 18, mention him. 

5 According to Apollonius, who wrote under Commodus, Montanus had appeared forty 
years before (apud. Euseb. y. 18). This is the oldest and safest account. Eusebius in his 
Chronicle places the commencement of Montanism in the year 172; Epiphanius Haer. li. 
33, in the year 135; and Haer. xlviii. 1, in the year 157. : 

6 Following the example of Philo, Justin and Athenagoras also consider the state of 
prophetic inspiration as an eestasis. The former (Coh. ad. Graecos p. 9) compares the 
prophets during it to a lyre which is tonched by the Holy Spirit as the plectrum; the 





~ 


CHAP. Il—HERETICS. § 48. MONTANISTS. 41 


Paraclete had imparted itself to him for the purpose of giving 
the church its manly perfection. Two fanatical women, Maz- 
imilla and Priscilla, attached themselves to him as prophetess- 
es; and thus a party was formed, the adherents of which, 
vainly presuming that they alone possessed the last revelations 
of the Spirit,’ as mvevyarixoi, full of spiritual arrogance, looked 
down upon other Christians as yevyxoi. These new prophets 
did not wish to alter the received ereed, but to confirm it 
anew.* On the other hand they prescribed new and rigorous 
fasts,° forbade second marriage, attributed extraordinary value 
to celibacy and martyrdom, manifested profound contempt for 
every thing earthly, and taught that incontinence, murder, and 
idolatry, though they did not exclude from the grace of God 
(Tertullian de pudic. c. 3), shut a person out forever from the 
church.’ At the same time, they weré not afraid to proclaim 


latter (Legat. p. 9) compares them in the same sense to a flute (Schwegler, S. 100). In like 
manner the Holy Spirit, through Montanus, describes the ecstasy of the Montanist prophets, 
apud Epiphan. Haer. xlvili. 4: "dod dvOpwroc¢ Goel Aipa, KdyO intayat doet TARKTpOV* 
6 dvOpuroc Kowsdrat, Kdyo ypnyopG* idod Kipiog éotiy 6 éStoTdvav Kapdiac dvOpdrwr, 
kat didovc kapdiac GvOparotc. Tertullian calls the ecstasis which he explains by amentia 
(lib. de anima c. 11) Sancti Spiritus vis, operatrix prophetiae. That which le describes 
bears a striking resemblance to magnetic clairvoyance (1. c. c. 9): Est hodie soror apud 
nos revelationum charismata sortita, quas in Ecclesia inter dominica solemnia per ecstasin 
in spiritu patitur, conversatur cum angelis, aliquando etiam cum Domino, et videt et audit 
sacramenta, et quorundam corda dinoscit, et medicinas desiderantibus submittit, &c. A 
similarity also to the speaking with tongues among the Corinthians (1 Cor. xiv.) can not 
but be noticed. Schwegler, S. 83. 

7 The Montanists had not an uninterrupted series of prophets. The Anon. ap. Euseb. 
v.17, wrote in the 14th year after the death of Maximilla, and says that since then none 
had boasted of the gift of prophecy. But in the time of Tertullian there was again a 
Montanist prophetess in Africa, see note 6. 

8 So Tertullian adv. Praxeam, c. 2, § 13, appeals to the prophecies of the Paraclete in 
favor of his doctrine of the Trinity. Schwegler, S. 8. 

® At first there were two yearly, each one continuing a week, with the exception of 
Saturday and Sunday (Tertullian de jejun, c. 15) afterward three (Hieron. Ep. 27 ad Mar- 
cellam), in case the third be not the usual ecclesiastical quadragesimal fast, as Valesius 
ad Buseb. vy. 18, and Schwegler suppose, and which, therefore, Tertullian has not reckoned. 

10 Tertull. de virginibus velandis c.1: Regula quidem fidei una omnino est, sola immo- 
bilis, et irreformabilis—-Caetera jam disciplinae et conversationis admittunt novitatem 
correctionis :—cum propterea Paracletum miserif Dominus, ut, quoniam humana medioc- 
ritas omnia semel capere non poterat, paulatim diregeretur et ordinaretur et ad perfectam 
perduceretur disciplina ab illo vicario Dei Spiritu Sancto. From John xvi. he draws the 
conclusion that the administratio Paracleti is, quod disciplina dirigitur, quod scripturae 
tevelantur, quod intellectus reformatur, quod ad meliora proficitur. Just as in nature 
every thing ripens gradually, sic et justitia—primo fuit in rudimentis, natura deum me- 
tuens. Dehine per legem et prophetas promovit in infantiam. Dehine per Evangelium 
efferbuit in juventutem. Nunc per Paracletum componitur in maturitatem. Compare 
the other writings of Tertullian in defense of single monastic institutions, de exhortat. 
castitatis, de monogamia, de fuga in persecutione, de jejunio adv. Psychicos, de pudicitia. 


142 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. Il==A.D. 117+193. 


aloud the end of the world, and the millennial reign as near at 
hand."’ By this means they excited first of all dislike and op- 
position in their vicinity. .Their opponents were satisfied for 
the most part with disputing their prophetic gift as not genu- 
ine ;'? and on this ground alone they were excluded from com- 
munion by the churches of Asia Minor.'* Some, however, led 
on by opposition to farther inquiry, began to reject even the 
support which Montanism had in the doctrines of the church at 
that time.’ In this respect, those afterward called Alogi went 


11 Maximilla announced, according to Euseb. v. 16, 8: TloAéuove écecbat cai ixaTaoras 
oiac, according to Epiph. Haer. xlviii. 2: “Ori wer éud mpodaric obxéte otal, GAA ovr- 
réAeca. Priscilla or Quintilla apud Epiph. Haer. xlix.1: ’Ev idég yuvarxdg éoxnuatiopé- 
voc éy oTOAG Aaurpé HAVE Tbe ue Xpiotoc, Kal EvéBarev év éuol THY codiar, Kai drexdAvWe 
f20l, Tovtovi Tov Torey (THY Llexoblnv) eivar dyzov, Kai Hde THY lepovoaAgu ek Tod obpavod 


«xattévat. A collection of Montanist predictions in Wernsdorf de Montanistis, § 4, others 


besides in Didymus Alex. de trinit. lib. iii. cap. penult. Cf, Tertullian. de resurrect. carnis, 
ce. 63: At enim Deus omnipotens—effiindens in novissimis diebus de suo spiritu in omnem 
carnem, in servos suos et ancillas, et fidem luborantem resurrectionis carnalis animavit, et 
pristina instrumenta manifestis verborum et sensuum luminibus ab omni ambiguitates ob- 
scuritate purgavit.—(Spiritus sanctus) jam omnes retro ambiguitates et quas volunt parabo- 
las, aperta atque perspicua totius sacramenti praedicatione discussit, per novam prophetiam 
de paracleto inundantem. The same, in a fragment in the Praedestinatus haer. 26: Hoc 
solum discrepamus (a Psychicis), quod secundas nuptias non recipimus, et prophetiam Mon- 
tani de futuro judicio non recusamus. How fanatical they were in their expectations may 
be seen in Tertullian. de spectaculis, c.30: Quale autem spectaculum in proximo est, ad- 
ventus Domini jam indubitati, jam superbi, jam triumphantis !—Quid admirer, quid videam, 
ubi gaudeam, ubi exultem, tot spectans reges, qui in coelum recepti nuntiabantur, cum ipso 
Jove et ipsis suis testibus in imis tenebris congemiscentes ! item praesides, persecutores do- 
minici nominis, saevioribus quam ipsi contra Christianos saevierunt flammis insultantibus li- 
quescentes ! praeterea sapientes illos philosophos coram discipulis suis una conflagrantibus 
erubescentes, &c. Tertullian’s lost work, de spe fidelium, mentioned by him, ady. Marcion 
fii. c. 24, was exclusively devoted to this object. 

12 Eusebius, iy. 27, and v. 16-19, mentions the polemic writings of Claudius Apollinaris, 
Miltiades, an anonymous person (who, according to Jerome, Cat. c. 37 and 39, was Rhodon; 
by several modern authors incorrectly supposed to be Asterius Urbanus, cf. Wernsdorf de 
Montanistis, p. 4), Apollonius, and Serapion, and gives extracts from the last three— 
The éxoraci¢ of the Montanist prophets gave special offense. It wags asserted in opposi- 
tion that all coraozc is an inspiration proceeding from demons, cf. Anonymus apud Euseb. 
v. 16, 3, and Miltiadis cdyypayma epi Tod uy deiv mpooArny év éxotdcet AaAsiv (Euseb. v. 
17, 1). Tertull. adv. Marcion. iv.c. 22: Defendimus, in causa novae prophetiae, gratiae ecsta- 
sin, id est amentiam, convenire. In spiritu enim homo constitutus, praesertim cum gloriam 
Dei conspicit, vel cum per ipsum Deus loquitur, necesse est excidat sensu, obumbratus 
scilicet virtute divina: de quo inter nos et Psychicos quaestio est. According to Jerome, 
Cat. c. 53, Tertullian wrote de ecstasi libros vi. 

13 Anonymus ap. Euseb. v. 16, 5. 

14 To this number appear to belong the rejecters of Chiliasm, of whom Irenteus, v.c. 31, 
says: Quidam ex his, qui putanturrecte credidisse, supergrediuntur ordinem promotionis 
justorum,—haereticos sensus inse habentes ; and 32: Transferanter quorundam sententiae 
ab haereticis sermonibus, &c. Farther, the rejecters of the Apocalypse, of whom Dionysius 
Alex. repi érayyedi@v apud Euseb. vii. c. 25, says: Tivéc pév ody trav mpd judr 70érgcav 
kal dvecketacay mavTp Td BiGAcov K. T. 2) who went so far as to hold Cerinthus to be the 
author, 


ee Ae ety 


CHAP. IL~HERETICS. § 48. MONTANISTS. 143 


farthest, who not only denied the continuance of charismata in 
the church, and millennarianism, but rejected the Apocalypse, 
and even the gospel of John.’ 

This very mode of opposition, against which, even in Asia 
Minor, Melito, bishop of Sardis, presented himself as an antag- 
onist,'® contributed largely, perhaps, to procure Montanism many 
friends in the west.'’ The western churches never declared 
themselves exclusively in favor of any of the conflicting parties 
in Asia;'* and thus the principles of the Montanists, which 
were, after all, only the carrying out of orthodox doctrines, 
could be diffused there,’® without the necessity of a Montanist 
party separating itself from the rest of the church. 

The Montanists in Asia, who had their peculiar ecclesiastical 


15 Compare especially the above cited work of Merkel, whom also Olshausen (Aechtheit 
der vier canon. Evang. 8. 254, ff.) follows. Irenaeus, iii. c. 11: Alii vero, ut donum Spiritus 
frustrentur, quod in noyissimis temporibus secundum placitum patris effusum est in humanum 
genus illam speciem non admittunt, quae est secundum Joannis evangelium, in qua Para- 
cletum se missuram Dominus promisit ; sed simul et evangelium et propheticum repellunt 
Spiritum. Infelices vere, qui pseudoprophetae [leg. pseudoprophetas] quidem esse volunt, 
prophetiae vero gratiam ab ecclesia repellunt; similia patientes his, qui propter eos, qui in 
hypocrisi veniunt, etiam a fratrum communicatione se abstinent. Datur autem intelligi, 
quod hujusmodi neque apostolum Paulum recipiant. In ea enim epistola, quae est ad Co- 
rinthios, de propheticis charismatibus diligenter locutus est, et scit viros et mulieres prophe- 
tantes. Per haec igitur omnia peccantes in Spiritum Dei, in irremissibile incidunt pecca- 
tum, The name “AAoyor appears first in Epiphanius Haer. li. adv. Alogos, comp. espe- 
cially the passage cap. 33, according to the following correction of the text (so Merkel, 8. 
35, f£): "Evoixyjodvtwv yap tottwv éxeice (cic OvdTte:pa) kai TOv Kata Dpdiyac, [oi per] 
Oixny Aikov dpragivtwv tac diavoiac Tév dkepaiwy TioTwv, wEeTHveyKav THY Tdcav 
TOA sic THY abTOv aipecty: oi 62 dpvobuevor THY ’AnoKdALvINY, Tod Adyov ToUTOV El¢ 
dvatponnv, kat’ éxeivov katpov éorpatetorTo. 

16 To this subject sppear to belong, his works epi woActeiac, Kai mpodyTav, Adyoc Tepi 
mpogoytetac, wept THC GroKaAtWewe "lwdévvov (comp. Licke’s Hinl. in d. Offenb. Johan. 
8. 289). They were naturally very welcome to the Montanists, and hence Melito was 
praised by Tertullian even in the Montanist period of the latter’s life (Hieronymus, in Catal. 
c. 24: Hujus elegans et-declamatoriam ingenium laudans Tertullianus in septem libris, 
quos scripsit adversus ecclesiam pro Montano, dicit, eam a plerisque nostrorum prophetam 
putari). But it does not follow from this, as Danz, Heinichen, and Schwegler (S. 223) 
would have it, that Melito was a Montanist. See Piper’s Melito, in the theol. Stud u. 
Krit. 1838, i. 86. 

17 Cf. Irenaeus above, not. 14 and 15. The account of Praedestinatus, Haer. 26: Scrip- 
sit contra eos (Montanistas) librum s. Soter Papa urbis is highly improbable, and is perhaps 
nothing more than a conclusion from Tertullian adv. Prax. c. 1, praecessorum ejus auctori- 
tates defendendo. 

18 The Christians of Lyons and Vienne had added to their account of the persecution 
they endured, a judgment on the controversy with the Montanists, which Eusebius unfor- 
tunately omitted, (Euseb. v. 3, 2): "ExBépevoe Kal Tév map’ abtoic TehewbévTwv wapTo- 
pav diadspouc ExictoAdc, dc év decpoig Ere trp; yovres toi¢ én’ ’Aciac Kai Ppvyiac adeA- 
goic Stexdpatav: ob pny GAAG Kal’ Exevdépw, tT T6Te ‘Popaiov éxioxdny, Tig Tov éxKAg- 
otdy eipnync Evexa mpecBevovtec. Comp. the Praefatio of Maranus to the Opp. of the 
Apologists, P, iii. c, 14, § 2, ss. 18 An instancé below, § 53, note 39. 


? m FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 117-193. 


constitution,®° continued down to the tenth century.”* Besides 
_ their usual names, Montanistae, Cataphryges (oi kata &pbyac), 
other appellations were applied to them, some of which may 
have referred to particular sections, while others were mere 
names of derision.”* 





THIRD CHAPTER. 


INTERNAL HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 


§ 49. 


The internal development of the orthodox church depended 
in a great degree on its external relations, the persecution of 
the heathen, and the attacks of heretics. Christian literature 
had been confined till now solely to didactic and admonitory 
letters, seven of which in this period also, proceeded from the 
pious bishop of Corinth, Dionysius ;* but now it developed 
itself in other directions, particularly in defending Christianity 
against the heathen, and in combating heretics. It was cor- 
rupted, however, by a mass of spurious writings. Those exter- 
nal relations could not be without an influence on the formation 
of doctrines, since they led of necessity to the exhibition and 
support of particular dogmas. In like manner, ecclesiastical 
usages received from them a more definite character. At the 
same time, it was a circumstance of great importance, that sev- 
eral Platonic philosophers had now come over to Christianity, by 


20 Hieronym. Ep. 27, ad Marcellam: Habent primos de Pepusa Phrygiae Patriarchas : 
secundos, quos appellant Cenonas: atque ita in tertium, i. e., paene ultimum locum Episcopi 
devolvuntur. 

21 The last laws against them proceeded from Justinian, a.D. 530 and 532, see Cod. lib. 
i. tit. 5, 1. 18-21. 

22 Quintilliani, Priscillianistae, ’"Aprotvpiraz (see on this Noesselt de vera aetate scriptt. 
Tertulliani, § 47), Tascodrugitae (tacoahopvyyira). The following are mere corruptions 
of words: Tascodrocitae (Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 10), Ascodrogitae (Philastr. c. 75), Ascodrogi 
(Theodos. jun. novella iii. in fine), Ascodrutae, Ascodrupitae, (which, however, are enu- 
merated among the Marcosians by Theodoret Haer. fab. comp. i. 10), Ascitae (Augustin de 
Haer. 62), cf. Gothofredus ad novellam iii. Theodosii jun. From such corrupted names, 
however, new heresies have been etymologically deduced. 

1 ’Exiorodai caboArkai to the churches of Rome, Nicomedia, Gnossus, Athens, Lace- 
daemon, Gortyna, and in Pontus. Fragments are given by Euseb. ii. 25, iv. 23. 


eye ee 


sli ios i ale ial eo 


> 


CHAP. IlIl—CATHOLIC CHURCH. §50. APOLOGIES. 145 


means of whom Platonism. continued to gain more friends 
among the Christians. Besides, the Greek language was. 
almost the only ecclesiastical tongue.? Although several Latin 
translations of the Bible were made,’ yet the writers even of 
the western church wrote in Greek. But Christian ideas had 
a freshness of life only in the people who spoke the language 
of the New Testament. In the west, they merely received 
what the east produced. 


§ 50. 


APOLOGIES FOR CHRISTIANITY AGAINST HEATHEN AND JEWS. 


J. A. Fabricii Delectus argumentorum et syllabus scriptorum, qui veritatem relig. christ. 
asseruerunt. Hamb. 1725.4. H.G.Tzschirmer’s Geschichte der Apologetik. Leipz. Th. 
1. 1805.8. The same author's Fall des Heidenthums, i. 202, ff. A list of apologetic 
works may be found in Danz de Eusebio Caes. p. 93, ss.—The best edition of all the 
apologists is given by Prudentius Maranus. Paris. 1742. fol. 


The pressure of circumstances gave rise at this time to va- 
rious apologies for Christianity, which are supposed in part to 
have been presented to emperors ;* the first to Hadrian (126), 
in Athens, by Quadratus and Aristides (Euseb. iv. 3; Hieron. 
Catal. 19, 20).? The first apology of Justin Martyr (+ 166) 


2 At this period originated the custom of the Roman Church, wrlijat continued down to 
the middle ages, of requiring those who were to be baptized to recite the creed first in 
Greek then in Latin. Cf. Edm. Martene de antiquis eccl. ritibus, ed. 2, t. i. p88; A. Ga- 
vanti Thesaurus sacr. ritaum ed. G. M. Meratus, t.i. p. 42, and the other works quoted in 
W alchii Biblioth. symbol. vetus, p. 57. 

3 Augustin. de Doctr. christ. ii. 11: Qui scripturas ex hebraica lingua in graecam verte- 
runt, numerari possunt, latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuwivis primis fidei 
temporibus in manus venit codex Graecus, et aliquantulum facultatis'sibi utriusque linguae 
habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari. C. 16: In ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala 
caeteris praeferatur; nam est verborum tenacior cum abi sententiae. L. van 
Ess Gesch. d. Vulgata. Tiibingen. 1824. 8. 

1 First doubted by Bayle, s. v. Athenagore. Semler Tatodynton to Baumgarten’s Po- 
lemik, ii. 43. Henke, i. 129. In opposition to these doubts, see Tzschirner Fall des Hei- 
denthums, i. 233. Semisch Justin d. M. i. 63. 

2 The apology of Quadratus was still extant in the beginning of the seventh century 
(Photius, cod. 162). That Ado (about 860) had the apology of Aristides does not follow from ~ 
his Martyrolog. ad d. 5, Nov. (cf. J. Dallaei de scriptis, quae sub Dionysii Areop. et Ignatii 
Antioch. nominibus circumferunter, p. 90, s.): and the account of de la Guilletiére Athénes 
anciennes et nouvelles, Paris. 1676, p. 146, of its being still preserved at that time in the 
monastery of Medelli at Athens, is as little worthy of credit as all the rest of the narrative 
of this pretended journey (see on it Spon Voyage d'Italie et Dalm. Chateaubriand’s Tray- 
els from Paris to Jerusalem, part i. p. 33. 

: According to Dr. A. Stieren in Illgen’s Zeitschr. fiir d. hist. Theol. 1842, i. 21, the year 

vou. 1.—10 


146 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 117-193. 


is addressed to Antoninus Pius (138 or 139), the second and. 
smaller belongs, according to the usual opinion, to Mareus 
Aurelius and Lucius Verus (161—166).* The other apologetic 
writings designed for the heathen, which are attributed to him, 
are of more doubtful origin.* ‘To Marcus Aurelius, Athenago- 
ras addressed his mpeoBeia mepi Xprotcavar ;° and Melito, bishop 
of Sardis,’ and Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis,* their 
apologies since lost (Euseb. iv. 26; Hieron. Cat. 24,26). At the 
same time appeared the apology of Miltiades (Euseb. v. 17; 
Hieron. Cat. 39); of Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, in three 
books to Autolycus ;° and of Tatian, the Adyog mpig "EAAnvac.'® 
On the other hand, the epistle to Diognetus is older.’ Per- 


of Justin’s death was 161. On the credibility of the ancient narrative of Justin’s death, see 
Semisch Justin d. M. i. 16. _ 

* So according to Pagi, Tillemont, Mosheim, and Semisch. On the other hand, accord- 

ing to Valesius, Longuerue, and Neander (K. G.i. ii. 1144), it was also written under An- 

‘toninus Pius. F.Chr. Boll, in Ilgen’s Zeitschrift, 1842, iii. 3, assumes that both apologies 
made up originally one whole, which may have been written about 150. Apologiam pri- 
mam ed. J. E. Grabe. Oxon. 1700, alteram H. Hutchin. ib. 1703, utramque C. Gu. Thale- 
mann. Lips. 1755. J. W.J. Braunius. Bonnae. 1830. 8. In the older editions before 
Grabe the smaller apology is incorrectly placed first. Comp. Justin d. Martyrer von C. 
Semisch. 2 Thle. Breslau. 1840-42. 8. J.C. Th. Otto de Justini M. scriptis et doctrina 
comm. Jenae. 1841. 8. §. Justini philosophi et M. opera rec., prolegomenis, adnotatione 
ac versione instruxit indicesque adjecit J.C. Th. Otto. 2 tomi. Jenae. 1842. 8. 

5 The Aéyoc mapaivetikoc mpoc “EAAnvag was first denied to be Justin Martyr’s by Ou- 
dinus, lately by Herbig (comm. de scriptis, quae sub nomine Justini phil. et mart. circum- 
feruntur. Vratisl. 1833), Arendt (krit. Untersuchungen uber die Schriften Just. d M. in the 
Tiabinger theol. Quartalschr. 1834, ii. 256), and Moehler (Patrologie, i. 224), but it is de- 
fended by Semisch, i. 105. The Aéyoc xpig “EAAnvac is pronounced unauthentic by most 
writers, even by Semisch, i. 163. On the fragment repi dvacrdcews opinions are divided. 
Herbig, l. c. p. 74, endeavors at great length to prove the spuriousness ; Semisch, i. 146, the 
genuineness of it. There is also great difference of sentiment respecting the work zxepi 
povapxiac. Herbig, p. 69 and Semisch, i. 167, regard it as spurious. In the mean time, 
however, all these works belong to this period. 

6 I. e. supplicatio, not legatio, according to Mosheim de vera aetate apologetici, qaam Ath. 
pro Christ. scripsit, diss. (in dissert. ad hist. ecgl. pertin. vol. i. p. 269, ss.) written in the 
year 177. ed. J. G. Lindner. Longosal. 1774, ejusd. curae posteriores in Athen. ibid. 1775. 
8. Tlepi dvactdcews TG vexpGv ed. L. A. Rechenberg. Lips. 1685. 8. Th. Adr. Clarisse 
Comm. de Athenagorae vita et scriptis et ejus doctrina de relig. christ. Lugd. Bat. 1819. 8 
Guerike de schola Alexandrina, i. 21, ii. 6, 50, 97, 403. 

7 Melito, by licentiate F'. Piper in the theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1838, i. 54. 

8 The fragments in the Catenae, especially in the Depa eic rv ’Oxtdrevyor—énipereia 
Nexnddpov tod Oeoréxov, Lips. 1772, 2 voll. fol., attributed to one Apollinaris, deserve a 
closer examination. The most of them belong to Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea in the 
fourth century; but many might be referred even to the bishop of Hierapolis. See 
Schwegler’s Montanismus, 8. 203. 

® Ed. J. C. Wolf. Hamb. 1724. 8, translated by M. W.F.Thienemann. Leipzig. 1834. 

10 Ed. Worth. Oxon. 1700.8. Tatianus d. Apologet, von Dr. H. Daniel. Halle. 1837. 8. 

11 Formerly attributed falsely to Justin. On the other side, see Tillemont, Mémoires, 
ii. 371; C. D. a Grossheim de epist. ad Diognetum comm. Lips. 1828. 4to, who fixes the 


CHAP, IIL—CATHOLIC CHURCH. $50. APOLOGIES. 147 


haps also M. Minucius Feliz, a lawyer in Rome, who defended 
Christianity in a dialogue called Octavius, belongs to the age 
of Marcus Aurelius, and is in this view the oldest Latin apolo- 
gist. On the contrary, the dacupuds tév é£w Grdocd@wv of Her- 
mtas must be placed in a later period.** 

All these defenders aim principally to show the groundless- 
ness of the accusations adduced against Christianity,“ the rea- 
sonableness of it contrasted with the absurdity and immorality 
of heathenism, and the nothingness of the heathen deities.” 


~ While they refer to the fact that Christianity agrees with the 


wisest philosophers, they represent the latter again as having 
drawn their wisdom from the Old Testament. In proving the 
divine origin of Christianity, they attach special value to the 
predictions of the Old Testament, the miracles of Jesus and the 
apostles, the miraculous powers continuing among Christians,’* 


epistle about the year 132; Moehler (Schriften u. Aufsatze, i. 19. Patrologie, i. 154), who 
places it in the time of Trajan; Semisch (Justin d. M.i..172}, who puts it in the time of 
Justin. It has been published with an introduction and remarks by Lic. G. Bohl in Opus- 
cula Patram selecta. Berol. 1826. p. i. p. 109, ss. 

12 In the three only known MSS., and in the older editions, it appears as the eighth 
book of Arnobius (lib. octavus, a misunderstanding of the title Octavius). It has been 
very frequently published, among other forms cum integris Woweri, Elmenhorstii, 
Heraldi, et Rigaltii notis, alioruamque hinc inde collectis, ex rec. Jac. Gronovii. Accedunt 
Cyprianus de Idol. van. et Jul. Firm. Maternus. Lugd. Bat. 1709.8. J..G. Lindner. 
Longosalissae. 1760, ed. ii. emend. 1773. 8, translated with an introduction and remarks 
by J. G. Russwurm, Hamburg. 1824. 4, newly published, explained and translated by Dr. 
J. H.B.Lubkert. Leipzig. 1836. 8, ad fidem codd. regii et Bruxell. rec. ed. D. Muralto. 
Turici. 1836.8. The earlier more prevailing opinion that Minucius belongs to the interval 
between Tertullian and Cyprian, 220-230, rested particularly on the testimony of Jerome, 
who Catal. cap. 53, says: Tertullianus presbyter nunc demum primus post Victorem et 
Apollonium Latinorum ponitur; and first mentions Minucius in cap. 58. On the other hand, 
Blondell (de l’'Euchariste, p. 119), Dallaeus (against whom see Bayle’s Dictionn. s. v. 
Fronton), J.D. ab Hoven (in Lindner’s second edition, p. 261), Oelrichs (de scriptt. ecel. 
lat., p. 24) place him, from internal grounds, and because, cap. 9, Fronto (see § 40, note 2) 
is mentioned as still living, inthe age of Marcus Aurelius. This view has been lately 
adopted by Kestner (Agape, S. 356), H. Meirer (comm. de Minucio Felice, Turici- 1824. 8), 
Russwurm, and vy. Muralt 1. c., and even Tzschirner (Fall des Heidenthums, i. 219), 
who had formerly defended the old opinion in the Geschichte der Apologetik, i. 279. 

13 Ed. Worth (annexed to his Tatian), J. Ch. Dommerich, Hal. 1764.8. Gu.F. Menzel, 
Lugd. Batt. 1840. 8.. According to Menzel, the work belongs to the fifth century. 

44 Ch. F. Hisenlohr, Argumenta ab apologetis saec. ii. ad confirmandam rel. christ 
yeritatem usurpata. Tubing. 1797. 4. (recus. in Pottii Sylloge comm. theologg. vol. ii. 
p- 114, ss.) Tzschirner’s Fall des Heidenth. i. 237, ff. F. Wurm, in Klaiber's Studien 
der evangel. Geistlichkeit Wirtemberg’s, i. ii.1. Semisch, Justin d. M. ii. 56. 

16 Here an important preparation had been already made for them by the heathen 
philosophers, especially by the view that had originated with Euhemerus, that the deities 
were dead men. See above § 13, note 5. Cf Athenagoras, Leg. p. 35. Theoph. ad 
Autol. p. 75, 70. Minucius Felix, Oct. c. 21, appeals expressly to Euhemerus. 

16 Tholuck on the miracles of the Catholic Church in his verm. Schriften, i. 28, 


148 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 117-193. 


the rapid spread of Christianity, and the steadfastness of its fol- 
lowers in times of persecution. They demand, in fine, the same 
protection for Christians, which other philosophical sects en- 
joyed. 

In defense of Christianity against Judaism, there appeared at 
this period two dialogues ; under Hadrian the dy7iAoyia Manioxov 


. 


kai "Idoovoc, which was afterward, but certainly without reason, 
ascribed to Aristo of Pella ;*? and diddoyo¢ mpdg Tpidwva lovdaior, 
of Justin Martyr. 


§ 51. 


COMBATING OF HERETICS—CATHOLIC CHURCH—CANON OF THE NEW 
TESTAMENT. 


The writings of the earlier opponents of heretics, the work of 
Justin Martyr against all heresies ;' the books of Agrippa Cas- 
tor (about 135), who wrote against Basilides; of Justin Mar- 
tyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Rhodon, Philip bishop of Gortyna, 
and of Modestus, who all wrote against Marcion; of Miltiades, 
Claudius Apollinaris, Serapion bishop of Antioch, and Apollo- 
nius, who all wrote against the Montanists, have been lost, ex- 
cept a few fragments. On the other hand, we still possess the 
work of Irenaeus (bishop of Lyons, 177202), éieyxog nai dva- 


11 This dvriAoyia or dedAesic, cited so early as by Celsus (Orig. c. Cels. iv. p. 199), is 
lost, and even of the Latin translation of one Celsus the Praef. ad Vigilium (in opp. 
Cypriani) is alone extant. Maximus (t 662) comm. ad. Dionys. Areop. de myst. theol. 
c. 1, is the first who names Ariston as the author, but adds: that Clement of Alex., 
Hypotyposeon, lib. vi., ascribes this dialogue to Luke. On the other hand, Hieron., in 
quaest. in Genes., says: In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram. © Plerique existimant, 
sicut in altercatione quoque lasonis et Papisci scriptum est—in Hebraeo haberi: in filio 
fecit Deus coelum et terram. Quod falsum esse ipsius rei veritas comprobat. A Hebrew 
Jewish-Christian like Aristo could never have written that. The Chron. paschale ad 
Olymp. 228, ann. 2, says that ’AmeAA7q¢ and ’Apiorwyr (probably 6 IeAAaioc ’Apicrwy) 
handed over an apology to Hadrian. Since this is not found, it seems that some con- 
jectured they discovered it in the dialogue in question. 

18 Ed. Sam. Jebb. Lond. 1719. 8. The doubts of its authenticity raised by ©. G. Koch 
(Justini M. cum Tryph. Jud. dial—suppositionis convictus. Kilon.1700.8. The contro- 
versial writings on the subject, see in Walchii Bibl. patrist. p. 216), Wetstein, Semler 
(Wetst. prolegg. in N. T. ed. Semler, p. 174), and S.G. Lange (Gesch. d. Dogmen d. 
christl. Kirche, i. 137), have been answered by G. Minscher, an dialogus cum Tryphone 
Jastino M. recte adscribatur. Marb. 1799. 4 (also in Commentatt. theoll. edd. Rosen- 
miller, Fuldner et Maurer, i. ii. 184), and Semisch, Justin d. M. i. 75. 

} Livraypa Kata Tachy Trav yeyernuévor alpécewy cited by himself, Apol. i- c. 26. 


ane 


ek Br dig Oe Ce ee ee 6 


a a ee 


CHAP. Hil.—CATHOLIC CHURCH. §51. COMBATING OF HERETICS. 149 


TpoT7) Tie pevdwvipfov yvdoews in five books, but for the most part 
merely in an old Latin translistion.’ 

The discordant-opinions of the philosophival schools taindoeiay 
which were to have been removed by the one, certain, Christian 
truth, had again appeared within the province of Christianity 
at this period, in the different parties. The ecclesiastical idea 
of afpectg was formed from thence chiefly by the characteris- 
tics of separation from the unity implied in the true church, 
and of insecure subjective presumption ;* but since Christian 
truth appeared not likely to be mistaken without blame at- 
taching to the individuals, it was generally believed that the 
sources of the heresies must be looked for in nothing else 
than self-will, pride, ambition, desire of rule, and want of love.‘ 
To the opposition presented to unbelievers, in which alone 
the church had been engaged till the present time,® there was 
now added the other opposition directed against heretics. B¥ 
this means the idea of the church being farther developed, 
there arose the expression éxkAjoia KaOodrKh,® 1. e., the only 

2 Ed. J. E. Grabe. Oxon. 1702. fol. Renatus Massuet. Paris. 1710. fol. Lib. iii, 
capita 1-4, in graecum sermonem restituta, criticisque annotationibus illustrata per H. 
Gu. J. Thiersch in the theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1842. ii. 512. A. Stieren de Irenaei adv. haer. 
operis foutibus, indole, doctrina, et dignitate. Gottingae. 1836. 4. In favor of the authen- 
ticity, in regard to which doubts were raised by Semler (especially in the dissert. in 
Tertull., in his edition of Tertullian, vol. v. p. 261, 300, ss.), see Chr. G. F. Walch de 
avGevria librorum Iren. adv. haer. in nov. commentariis soc. scient. Gotting. t. v. p. I. 
Respecting the fragments of Irenaeus found by Pfaff in the Turin Library (S. Irenaei 
fragmenta anecdota ed. Chr. M. Pfaff, Hagae Com. 1715. 8, reprinted in his Syntagma 
dissertt. theoll. Stuttgard. 1720. 8. p. 573), whose authenticity was doubted, chiefly from a 
Catholic bias, by Scip. Maffei, see Rothe’s Anfange d. christl. Kirche, i. 361. 

3 Trenaeus, v. 20,2: Tales sunt omnes haeretici—semper quaerentes et nunquam verum 
invenientes. Tertullianus de Praescr. 6: Haereses dictae graeca voce ex interpretatione 
electionis, qua quis, sive ad instituendas, sive ad suscipiendas eas utitur. Nobis vero 


nihil ex nostro arbitrio inducere lieet, sed nec eligere quod aliquis de arbitrio suo indux- 
érit. Apostolos Domini habemus auctores, qui nec ipsi quidquam ex suo arbitrio, quod 


_inducerent, elegerunt, sed acceptam a Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus adsignave- 


rant. Comp. Rothe’s Anf. d. christl. Kirche, i. 563. 

* Trenaeus, iii. 3, 2: Confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquo modo, vel per sibiplacentiam 
vel vanam gloriam, vel per caecitatem et malam sententiam praeterquam oportet colli- 
gunt. iv. 33,7: *Avakpivet dé Tove Ta oyicuara Epyatopévouc, Kevovg bvtag Tio Tov 
Geod aydzng, Kai 70 idtov AvaiTEedés oxonotyTac, GAAG py wid Evwoly THC éxxAnotag. 
Clemens Alex. Strom. vii. p. 887: Ai giAauraz kai o1AddoSor aipécerc. 

5 See above § 30. , 

6 The name first appears in Ignatii epist. ad Smyrn. c. 8, and in the epist. Eccl. 
Smyrn, de martyr. Polycarpi ap. Eusebius, iv. c. 15, § 1. Tertull. de Praescr. haeret. c. 20: 
(Apostoli) ecclesias apud unamquamque civitatem condiderunt, a quibus traducem fidei et 
semina doctrinae caeterae exinde ecclesiae mutuatae sunt, et quotidie mutuantur, ut 
ecclesiae fiant. Ac per hoc et ipsae apostolicae deputantur, ut soboles apostolicarum 
ecclesiaram. -Omne genus ad originem suam censeatur necesse est: itaque tot ac tantae 


150 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 117-193. 


church,’ out of which there is no salvation,’ which is destined 
to become universal, and has already given practical proof of 
this destination.® 

The writers against heresies certainly went into the peculiar 
doctrines of the heretics, for the purpose of refuting them; but 
they particularly combated their pretensions in alleging that 
their doctrine was the genuine doctrine of Christ and the apos- 
tles, by proving, from the agreement of the apostolic churches, 
that the doctrine of the apostles had been preserved without al- 
teration in the catholic church.’” ‘The common interest which 


ecclesiae una est, illa ab apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes prima, et omnes. 
apostolicae, dum una; omnes probant unifatem. The words can not refer to a formal 
founding of the catholic Church, as is assumed by J. E. Ch. Schmidt in his Bibliothek fiir 
Krit. u. Exegese, ii. 1. The idea first arose, and it afterward gave expression to itself 
by degrees, in the constitution and ordinances of the church. Comp. Minscher’s Dog- 
mengeschichte, ii. 379. Twesten’s Dogmatik, i. 109. Rothe’s. Anf. d. christl. Kirche, 
1gp55. 

7 Tn opposition to the sects which designed to form churches also, but which were only 
schools, dvatpiBai (Clem. Alexandrin. Strom. vii. p. 889), dvOpémivar ovvyhicerc (l..c. 
p. 898). 

8 Trenaeus, iv. 26,2. Haeretici alienum ignem afferentes ad altare Dei, i.e., alienas 
doctrinas, a coelesti igne comburentur, qaemadmodum Nadab et Abiud. iv. 33,7. Tertall. 
de Baptismo, c. 8. Ecclesia est arca figurata (cf. 1 Petr. iii. 20, 21). 

9 Trenaeus, i. 10, 1. ‘H éxxdAnoia xaé? banc olxovyévag &w¢ mepdtwov tHg yg OLe- 
orapuévy. Cf. i. 10, 2, iii. 11, 8, iv. 36, 2, v. 20, 1. 

40 Tertullian. de Praescr. haer.c. 21. Quid autem (apostoli). praedicaverint, id est, 
quid illis Christus revelaverit: et hic praescribam, non aliter probari debere, nisi per eas- 
dem ecclesias, quas ipsi apostoli condiderunt, ipsi eis praedicando, tam viva (quod aiunt) 

-yoce, quam per epistolas postea. Si haec ita sunt, constat proinde omnem doctrinam,,. 
quae cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis, matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati depu- 
tandam. C. 36. Percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc cathedrae apos- 
tolorum suis locis praesident, apud quas authenticae literae eorum recitantur, sonantes. 
vocem et repraesentantes. faciem uniuscujusque. Proxima est tibi Achaia? habes Co- 
rinthum. Si non longe es a Macedonia, habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si 
potes in Asiam tendere, habes Ephesum. Si autem Italiae adjaces, habes Romam, unde 
nobis quoque auctoritas praesto est. Ista quam felix ecclesia, cui totam doctrinam apos- 
toli cum sanguine suo profuderunt, ubi Petrus passioni dominicae adequatur, ubi Paulus 
Johannis exitu coronatur, ubi apostolus Johannes, posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus 
nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur. Videamus quid dixerit, quid cum Africanis quoque 
ecclesiis contesserarit, &e. (Comp. Neander’s Antignosticus, S. 3238, ff.) In the west 
the Roman was the only apostolic church. Hence they natnrally appealed to it there 
chiefly, Iren. iii. 3. Traditionem itaque apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatem, in 
omni ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus, qui vera velint videre, et habemus annumerare 
eos, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in ecclesiis et successores eorum usque ad nos, 
qui nihil tale docuerunt.—Sed quoniam valde longum est, in hoc tali volamine omnium. 
ecclesiarum enumerare successiones; maximae et antiquissimae et omnibus cognitae a 
gloriosissimis duobus apostolis, Petro et Paulo, Romae fundatae et constitutae ecclesiae 
eam, quam habet ab apostolis, traditionem et annunciatam hominibus fidem, per succes- 
siones episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes confundimnus omnes eos, qui 
quoquo modo—praeterquam oportet colligunt. Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter poten- 
tiorem (so all MSS., Massuet was the first that altered it into potiorem) principalitatena. 


CHAP. Ill.-CATHOLIC CHURCH. §51. COMBATING OF HERETICS. 15] 


was felt against heretics, and the feeling of oneness, strengthened 
by the idea of a catholic church, led to a closer union, of which 
the apostolic churches were regarded as a center, though with- 
out the existence of an external subordination among them. 

As the heretics appealed to apostolic traditions, and even used 
pretended aposto.ie writings in justification of their sentiments, 
the attention of catholic Christians was by this means more direct- 
ed to the genuine writings of the apostles scattered among them. 
The apostolic epistles had always been read in the places to 
which they were addressed, and in the neighboring congrega- 
tions; but there was no universally received collection of the 
necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua 
semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea, quae est ab apostolis, traditio. 
Irenaeus wishes to prove that the doctrine of the catholic Church is apostolic, preserved 
by the successors of the bishops ordained by the apostles. Since it is too prolix to point 
out this connection of the apostles with all churches, he wishes to limit his proof to the 
Church of Rome alone, and finally to represent the doctrine of the Roman Church as 
necessarily agreeing with that of the whole remaining church. Necesse est (dvdyx7) 
must not be confounded with oportet (Jez): the former expresses a natural necessity, the 


latter an obligation, duty. Potentior is /kavarepog (ef. iii. 3,3: potentissimas literas, 
ixavotdaryny ypadgiy), principalitas probably mpwreia (iv. 38,3: mpwrever uev iv raow 4 


, Ge6¢, principalitatem quidem habebit in omnibus Deus). Accordingly the Greek text 


may have been: mpo¢ tatryv yap tHv éxxAnoiav did THv ikavatépav TpwTeiav avdyKy 
ndoav cupuBaivery tyv éxkAnoiav, Tob7’ éott Tove wavTay6bev micToOd¢, dv G det roig 
mavrayoley ovvteTnpytat 7 ard TOV GrootéAwy Tmapddocig. “For with this church 
must the whole church, i.e., the believers of every place, agree, of course, on account of its 
more important pre-eminence.” A pre-eminence belonged to all apostolic churches; to 
the Roman Church a more important pre-eminence, on account of its greatness, and its 
havirg been founded by the two most distinguished apostles. In the rest of the sentence, 
I conjecture that the Latin translator was mistaken. Supposing the Greek text to have 
stood as above, the translator took the words roi¢ navrayé0ev for ind tév rayt. which 
was certainly grammatically correct ; ‘‘in which the apostolic tradition was always pre- 
served by believers from all places,” referring to the many foreigners who constantly 
belonged to the Roman community, and who afforded a warrant for the uninterrupted 
agreement of the Roman tradition with that’ of the rest of the church. But Irenzus 
meant to say: “in which the apostolic tradition has been always preserved in fellow- 
ship with the believers of all places.” Hence he adduces, in what follows, Clement’s 
epistle to the Corinthians, and Polycarp’s abode at Rome, as proofs of this uninterrupted. 
fellowship. Many other explanations may be seen in Grabe and Massuet on the pas- 
sage. Paulus, in Sophronizon; Heft 3. 1819. S. 141, ff. On the other side, Th. Kate- 
samp iber den Primat.d. Apost. Petrus u. s. Nachfolger. Mister. 1820. S. 30, 
Griesbach de potentiore Eccl. Rom. principalitate comm. Jen. 1778 (reprinted in his 
Opuscula Academ.,ed. Gabler, vol. ii. p. 136, ss.) H.W. J. Thiersch in the Theol. Stud, 
u. Krit. 1842, ii. 525. J. Wolff in Rudelbach’s and Guerike’s Zeitschrift fir d. luther. 
Kirche, 1842, iv. 7. Thiersch reads xdécav éxxAnoiav, and refers to it the év 7 in the 
sense: unaquaeque alia ecclesia idem testabitur de traditione apostolorum, dummodo in 
ea a fidelibus, cujusvis: sint loci, pure conservata sit tradita ab apostolis veritas. On the 
contrary, Neander, K. G. i. i. 349, says that the expression, qui undique sunt fideles, is 
not synonymous with omnis. ecclesia, if the latter mean “‘ every single church,” but only 
if it mean “every church,” i.e., all churches: and in the single churches the tradition was 
not preserved ab iis qui sunt undique. 


152 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. II.—A.D. 117-193. 


evangelical narratives, and the existing ones (comprehending, 
besides our canonical gospels, also the gospel of the Hebrews, 
that of the Egyptians, &c.) served in their spheres only for 
private use. After the churches had now come into closer con- 
nection, they communicated to one another, in their common 
interest against heretics, the genuine apostolic writings; and 
thus the canon began to be formed, in the first half of the sec- 
ond century, in two parts (76 Evayyéduov or 76 Evayyedresr, and 
6 ’"AréoroAo¢ or 76 ’ArootodKéyv), although in the different con- 
gregations there continued to be other writings, which were 
valued almost, if not altogether, as much as those which were 
universally received (é.oAcyotpeva, évdiéOnxa).” 

Instigated by the bold speculation of the Gnostics, which 
sought to lay an entirely foreign basis under Christianity, the 
catholic Christians began to establish as the unalterable regula 
Jjidei,” that summary of doctrine which could be shown, as well 
in the consciousness of all Christian communities, as also in the 
apostolic writings, to be the essential basis of Christianity, and 
which must remain untouched by, and be necessarily laid at the - 


foundation of, every speculation. . Accordingly, even the originally 


simple statements of the baptismal confession (rioti¢, céu6o0A0v)* 
were secured by additions against misunderstandings and perver- 
sions; but as the different wants of the church required this or 
the other doctrine to be made more clear, or to be emphatically 
exhibited, so the form of the baptismal confession became longer 
or shorter in different places.™* 
a 

11 Compare my essay iiber die Entstehung und die frihesten Schicksale der schriftl. 
Eyangelien. Leipz. 1818. 8. 142, ff. 179, fF. 190, ff. 

12 6 xavov éxxAnotactiKkéc Clemens Alex. Strom. vi. p. 803. 6Kkavdv tic dAnOeiac, 
Iren. i. 1, in fine. This rule of faith, therefore, as it is found, for example, in Irenaeus, i. 
10, 1, was not a formula handed down to the apostles (cf. Tertull. de Praescr. c. 13: Haee 
regula a Christo, ut probabitur, instituta; particularly c. 21: Omnis doctrina, quam 
ecclesiae ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo accepiv; c. 37: Regula, quam 
ecclesia ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo traditit), and was not placed above 
the interpretation of Scripture (for according to Tertullian de Corona militis, c. 3, it was a 
Catholic fundamental principle, etiam in traditionis obtentu exigenda est auctoritas 
scripta), as was asserted, after Lessing’s example, by Delbriick, Philip Melancthon der 
Glaubenslebrer. Bonn. 1826. S. 17, ff. 145, ff. Comp. on the authority of Holy Scripture, 
and its relation to the rule of faith, three theological epistles to Herr Prof. Delbriick by 
Sack, Nitzsch, and Liicke. Bonn. 1827. 

18 Maximus Turinensis (about 430) homil. in Symb. p. 239: Symbolum tessera est et 
signaculum, quo inter fideles perfidosque secernitur. These additions are referred to by 
Tertull. de Corona mil. c. 3: Ter mergitamur, amplius aliquid respondentes, quam Dominus 
in Evangelio determinavit. 

4 Cf. Ch. G. F. Walchii biblioth. gpubolice vetus:; Lemgoy. 1770.8. Dr. Aug. Hahn, 





CHAP. III CATHOLIC CHURCH. § 52. DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT. 153 


§ 52. 


- 


DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINES—SPURIOUS WRITINGS. 


A speculative treatment of Christian doctrine was generally 
indispensable, if Christianity was to be accessible to the philo- 
sophical culture of the times, and it was rendered unavoidable by - 
the progress of the Gnosties. It could only proceed from Pia- 
tonism, which of all philosophical systems stood the nearest to 
Christianity.". While many Platonic philosophers were brought 
over to Christianity by this internal relation, they received the 
latter as the most perfect philosophy,” and retained, with their 
philosophical mantle,* their philosophical turn of mind also. 
They set out with these positions, both that the Logos has con- 

_stantly communicated to men the seeds of truth,* an that the 
truth taught by Plato was derived from Moses and the proph- 
ets.° .The arbitrary mode of interpretation then current fur- 


Bibliothek d. Symbole u. Glaubensregeln d. apostolischkatholischen Kirche. Breslau. 
1842. 8. P. Kingii Hist. symboli apostolici ex angl. serm. in latinum translata (by Olear- 
jus). Basil. 1750. 8. J. R. Kiesling Hist. de usu symbolorum. Lips. 1753. 8. 

1 (Staudlin) de philosophiae Platonicae cum doctrina religionis judaica et christiana 
cognatione (a Géttingen Whitsuntide programm. 1819. 4.) D.C. Ackermann, das Christ- 
‘liche im Plato u. in d. platon. Philosophie.. Hamburg. 1835. D. F. Chr. Baur, das Christ- 
‘liche des Platonismus, od. Sokrates u. Christus, in the ve ee Zeitschr. f. Theologie, 
1837. Heft 3: 

+ Comp. the remarkable history of Justin Martyr’ 8 conversion in his Dial. c. Tryph. c. 3, 
ss.: which he, c. 8, concludes with the words, ravryv pdévyv etptoKxov gAocodiav dodaay 
“te kal ciugopov. Ottwc 67 Kai did Taita gcAdcogoc éys, Thus Christianity is desig- 
nated by Melito, ap. Euseb. iv. 26, 4, as 7 Kal’ nude dtAocogia. Keilii Opusc. ii. 463. 

3 rpiBwv, TpiBeriov, pallium. C. G. F. Walchii Antiquitates pallii philosophici vett. 
Christian. Jen. 1746. 8. Semisch, Justin d. M. i. 23. 

* Justin M. Apol. ii.c. 13: Ob dAAdtpia bore Ta TiAadrwvoc diddyuara Tov. Xptorov, 
GAM ob éott wavTn Guota, Gorep obde Ta TOV GAAwWY, Etwikdv Te, Kai wolnTadv,; Kal 
ovyypadéar’ Exactocg yap tig dnd pépove TOU oxEpuarctKod Osiov Aéyou Td cvyyevéc Opav 
Kkarad¢ éo0éyéato.—éoa ody rapa TaGt KaAde elpytat, Hudv Tv XpiotiavGv éort. ~Ac- 
cording to c. 10, Christ was apprehended kai id LwxpdTove ard uépove* Adyo¢ yap Av 
kat éotw 6 év wavti Ov. 

5 So the Jews had already asserted, Josephus contra Apion, ii. 8; and Aristobulus apud 
Clemens Alex. Strom. i. p. 410, according to whom Plato is said to have employed even 
the Old Testament in an ancient version. The heathen philosopher Numenius (1. c.) goes 
so far as tosay: Ti Zore TlAdtwv, } Mwoje arrixifwv. The fathers derived all that was 
true and Bod i in the Greek poets and philosophers from Moses and the prophets, Justin 
Apolog. i. 44, ii. 13. Coh. ad Graecos, c. 14. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 37. Because they 
found most trath in Plato, they represented him Sl iges as drawing from this source. 
Hence he is called in Eféniens Alex. Paed. ii. p. 224, 6 x Mwaéwe g1Adcogoc, Strom. 1. p. 


154 . FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 117-193. 


nished them with the means of proving their views even from 
numerous passages of the Old Testament, which they could use, 
indeed, only in the Septuagint version. Thus, then, they over- 
valued even the actual agreement of Plato with Christianity,’ 
and believed that they found many a Platonic idea in the latter, 
which in reality they themselves had first introduced into it.* 
The Christian philosophers of this time with which we are ac- 
quainted .are Aristides, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatian, 
Pantaenus (§ 39), and Maximus (about 196).° The questions 
with which they were chiefly occupied were the same as those 
the Gnostics set out with, respecting the origin of evil, and its 
overthrow by Christ, but especially regarding the divine in 
Christ.*° They found the latter designated by John as the 
Aéyoc, and in the development of this idea took Philo for their 
guide; since, like him, they thought the Logos was met with 
every where in the Old Testament."! Most difficult were the 


321, 6 2& ‘EGpatwr giAdcodoc. Cf. H. N. Clausen Apologetae Eccl. christ. antetheo- 
dosiani Platonis ejusque philosophiae arbitri. Havn. 1817. 8. p.187,'ss. Clausen himself 
attributes to Plato (p.196) some knowledge of the law and of the doctrine of the Hebrews. 
> Comp. Justini Coh. ad Graecos, c. 20, ss. According to c. 29, Plato is said to have 
borrowed his doctrine of ideas from the passages Exod, xxv. 9, 40; xxvi. 30, incorrectly 
understood ; and according to c. 31, to have imitated Ezek. x. 18 in the winged chariot 
of Zeus, &c. See Clausen, l. c. p. 191. 

___ 1 Justin finds in him the doctrine of the Son and Spirit; Clemens Alex. Strom. v. p. 710, 
’ the whole Christian Trinity. Clausen, I. c. p. 84. 

8 The Platonism of the fathers was perceived even by Petavius, Dogm. Theol. t. ii. lib. 
i. c. 3. The dogma of the Trinity was derived from it by (Souverain) le Platonisme 
devoilé, ou Essai touchant le verbe Platonicien. Cologne (Amsterdam). 1700 (translated 
by Loffler: Versuch tber d. Platonismus d. KV. Ziillichau. 1782. 2te Aufl. 1792. 8), and 
Jo. Clericus epist. crit. et eccles. (Artis criticae, vol. iii. Amst. 1712), especially ep. vii. and 
viii. On the other side, the matter was exaggerated by the Jesuit Baltus, Défense des 
saints péres, accusés de Platonisme. Paris. 1711. 4. Keil, de doctoribus veteris ecclesiae, 
culpa corruptae per platonicas sententias theologiae liberandis, comm. xxii. in ej. opuse. t. 
ii. Lips. 1821, has copiously given the literature of the subject. 

® Fragments of his work zepi rij¢ dane are preserved in Eusb. Praep. Ev. vii. 22. 

10 Ch. D. A. Martini Vers. einer pragm. Gesch. des Dogma v. d. Gottheit Christi in den 
vier ersten Jahrh. Th. 1. Rostock. 1800.8. Dr. F. Chr. Baur’s die christl. Lehre v. d. 
Dreieinigk. u. Menschwerdung Gottes (3 Th. Tibingen. 1841-43. 8). i. 163. G. A. Meier’s 
Lehre v. d. Trinitat in ihrer hist. Entwickelung (Hamburg u. Gotha. 1844), i. 53. 

11 So particularly Proverbs viii. 22, ss., but also Psalm xxxiii. 6; xlv. 1; civ. 24. The 
doctrine that God created the world by the Logos was: also naturally sought for in the 
Mosaic account of creation, where it was found: Gen. i. 1, 2v dpy7 is equivalent to did 
Tie dpxic, and apy7 is, according to Proverbs viii. 22, 7 cogia or 6 2dyoc. Theophil. ad 
Anutol. ii. 10,13. Tatian. Apol.c. 7. Tertull. adv. Hermog. c.20. This explanation was 
repeated in later times by Origenes, Hom. 1, in Gen., Basilius, Hom. 1, in Hexaémeron, 
Augustinus de Genesi lib. i. Others believed that they might venture to presuppose the 
existence of that doctrine as still more obviously contained in the Hebrew original, which 
they did not know. According to the Altercatio Iasonis et Papisci, the original expressed 


* 


CHAP. III—CATHOLIC CHURCH. § 52. DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT. 155 


questions respecting the essence of the Logos in relation to the 
Father, and his agency in relation to that of the Holy Spirit. 
With regard to the former point, there were several who did not 
assume a personal distinction of the Logos from the Father.’ 
But the view was more generally adopted, that he was a divine 
person, less than the Father, and produced out of his essence 
according to the will of the latter.‘* Agreeably to both views, 
the Logos was. the God working all in the finite, so that no 
room appeared to be left for the agency of the Holy Spirit. 
Accordingly, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit still remained en- 
tirely undeveloped.’ These speculations, whose object was to 


this idea, in filio fecit Deus coelum et terram (see above § 50, note 17); or as others be- 
lieved (Tertull. ady. Praxeam c. 5), in principio Deus fecit sibi filium. 

12 Justini Dial. c. Tryph. c. 128: Twwdéoxw tivac—Aéyetv,—atpytov Kal GxGpioteyv Tob 
matpoc Tavthy THY Sivauty [Tov Adyor] brdpyetv, dvrep TpdTOV Td TOD HAiov act dG¢ 
éxi yc elvat Gtuntov Kai dydpiorov dévto¢ Tod HAiov év td obpave’ kai bray dion, 
ovvarodéperat TO GG¢* obtwc 6 KaTHp, brav BobAnrat, Aéyovot, ddvautv abrod Tponndgy 
moet’ kal 6trav BobAnrat, wéAiv dvaoréAier sic éavté6v. Kata rodtov tov tpdérov Kai 
Tove dyyéAove woteiv adrov diddoxovotv. Athenagoras represents the Logos in the very 
same way as Philo to be the manifest God, not personally distinct from the concealed 
deity. Legat.c.9: "Eotiv 6 vidc tod Geod 6 Adyoc Tot warpéc év idéa Kal évepyela* mpdg 
abrod (leg. abrév] yap Kai bv abrod révra byéveto’ évdc bvTog TOD TaTpd¢ Kai Tod viod, 
évroc dé rod viod év warpi, Kal raTpic év vid, éEvéryTe Kai Ovvduer TvEebyaTog’ vote Kal 
Aoyo¢ Tod maTpb¢ 6 vidc Tod Oeod. Ei dé be brepBoajy ovvécewe oxoreiv ipiv éExetow, 6 
maic tt BobAsrat, &pd d:d-Bpayéwyv, mpGrov yévvyua elvat tH watpi, oby ae yevomwevov 
(8& dpyiic yap 6 Ocdc, vot¢ didiog Sv, elyev abrig év éavtH Tdv Adyor, Aiding AoyiKd¢ dv), 
GAN Oc, Tév dALKOV SyurdvTor Groiov dbcewe Kal yijc dyeiag [leg. dypeiac] broxepévar 
Oixny, weutypévov Tov Tayvpepectépwv Tpd¢ TA Kovddtepa Er’ abroic, idéa Kai Evépyera 
elvat mpoeABGv. LTuvddec 62 TH Adyw Kal Td TpodnTixdy mvedua* Kdpiog yap, oyowv, 
&xticé we apynv 6dGv abrod sic Epya abrod (Proverbs viii. 22). xaé tos Kai adtd Td 
évepyoiv Toicg éxdavotot mpodntikdc Gytov rvedpa drdppotay elvat dapév Tod Oeod, 
anoppéov Kai émavagepouevor, oc dxtiva jiiov. Comp. Miinscher’s Dogmengesch. i. 407. 
Martini, 1. c.S.54. Clarisse comm. de Athenagora p. 98. Others supposed that the divine 
in Christ was exactly one with the Father: Scriptor xii. Testam. Patriarch: Kipioc 6 
ed¢ wéyac Tod "lopanA Garvduevoc ent ye bc dvOpwroc (Sym. 6). 7d wAB0¢ Tod ‘YWiorov 
(Lev. 4). Cf. Nitzsch de Testam. xii. Patriarch. p. 29. Epiphanius Haer. }xii. c. 2, re- 
specting the Evangelium Aegyptiorum : ’Ev ajr@ 702d Tolaita oc év mapaBioTy pvoTn- 
pladde &k mpocdrov tod Lwripoc avadépetat, Gc ditod dnAodvtoc Toi¢g walnraic, Tov 
abrov eivar Tlarépa, tov airov eivat Yidv, tov abrov eivar dytov Ivedua, comp. Nean- 
der’s Antignosticus, S. 487, ff According to Baur (Lehre v. d. Dreieinigkeit, i. 173) 
even Irenaeus had no definite ideas of the Son as personally distinct from the Father. 
On the other side see Licentiate L. Duncker’s des h. Irenaeus Christologie. Gottingen. 
3843. 8. 8. 32. z 

43 Semisch, Justin d. M. ii. 277. Tertull. adv. Praxeam c. 8 calls this emanation 
mpoBoAHy veritatis in opposition to the false xpo@o2aic of the Gnostics: The Montanists — 
believed this latter theory confirmed by the revelation of the Paraclete, l. c. c. ii. 8, 15. 
The Alogi, on the contrary, rejected the doctrine of the Logos. Epiphan. Haer. li. L 
Lange’s Gesch. u. Lehrbegriff d. Unitarier vor der nicinischen Synode. Leipz. 1831. 8.156. 

14 Accordingly, the fathers of this period represent the prophets to be inspired some~ 
times by the Logas, sometimes by the Holy Spirit, and call*both the Logos and the Holy 


156 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IL—AD. 117-193. 


fathom the depths of the Godhead, might certainly at first wound 
the feelings of many, and Irenaeus openly expresses his disap- 
probation of the inconsiderate curiosity they manifest ;'* but, 
on the other hand, ecclesiastical orthodoxy could still endure di- 
versities in doctrine and customs, which did not injure the re- 
ligious basis of Christianity.’ 

Notwithstanding this philosophical tendency, and although in 
other respects the Pauline mode of surveying Christianity pre- 
dominated, yet the millennarianism of the Jewish Christians,’” 
presenting a sensuous counterpoise to the external pressure of 
persecution, which had been announced in so many apocalyptic 
writings,'* and for which the reputation of John (Apoc. xx. 4-6 ; 
xxi.) and his peculiar followers, afforded a warrant—this sittin: 
narianism became the general belief of the time, and met with 
almost no other opposition than that given by the Gnosties,’® 


Spirit cogiav, &c. Semisch, Justin. d. M. ii. 305, 311. Note——Theophilus ad. Autol. ii. 
23, gives the members of the Divine triad thus: Oed¢, 6 Aéyo¢ abrod, Kal 7 codia adTod, 
and says, ii. 14: *Eywyv ody 6 Oedc tov éavrod Aéyov évdiaberov év Toic idiote oxAGyyxvotc, 
éyévynoev abtoy peta tie éavTod cogiac éepevsduevog xpd TGv bAwv. Todtov Tov- 
Réyov Ecyev brovpyébv Tév br’ abrod yeyevnuévwr Kai dv adrod Ta TavTa TeToinkev.— 
Odtoc obv Ov rvedua Geod, kai apy7, Kai cogia, Kai divapuic ipicrov KaTHpyeTo ei¢ Tove 
mpoonrac, Kai Ov’ abtav éAGdec Ta Tepi THe Tolfoews Tov. Kécpuov, Kai TOY Romzadv 
ardvtav. ov yap joav ol mpog7rat, bte 6 Kéauoc éyiveto, 4220 h codia H tv aitH otca 
% Tow Oeod, kai 6b Abyo¢ 6 Gytoc abrod 6 dei cvuurapoy adTd. Here the Holy Spirit is 
the immanent wisdom of God, but the Logos the revealed God, who emanated from the 
Father. 

15 Trenaeus adv. Haer. ii. 28,6: Si quis itaque nobis dixerit: quomodo ergo Filius pro- 
latus a Patre est? dicimus ei, quia prolationem istam, sive generationem, sive nuncupa- 
tionem, sive adapertionem, aut quolibet quis nomine vocaverit generationem ejus 
inenarrabilem existentem, nemo novit, non Valentinus—neque Angeli—nisi solus qui 
generavit Pater, et qui natus est Filius. Inenarrabilis itaque generatio ejus cum sit, 
quicunque nituntur generationes et prolationes enarrare, non sunt compotes sui, ea quae 
inenarrabilia sunt, enarrare promittentes. Quoniam enim ex cogitatione et sensu verbum 
emittitur, hoc utique omnes sciunt homines: non ergo magnum quid invenerunt, qui 
emissiones excogitaverunt, neque absconditum mysterium, si id quod ab omnibus intel- 
ligitur, transtulerunt in unigenitum Dei Vgrbum: et quem inenarrabilem et innomina- 
bilem vocant, hunc, quasi ipsi obstetricaverint, primae generationis ejus prolationem et 
generationem enunciant, adsimilantes eam hominum verbo emissionis (Aédyw xpodopikd). 
Comp. Duncker’s des h. Iren. Christologie, S. 36. 

16 This doctrinal latitudinarianism is shown in the fact of the Nazarene Hegesippus, 
being recognized as orthodox in the churches of Corinth and Rome, these churches agree- 
ing with his orthodoxy. See above § 43, note 4. The same latitudinarianism may be 
seen in Justin's declaration respecting those who denied the personality of the Logos 
{above note 12), in the estimation in which the Shepherd of Hermas was held. (See § 35, 
note 4, § 36, note 3). 

17 (H. Corodi’s) krit. Geschichte des Chiliasmus, 3 Bae. Zurich. 1781-83. 8. 

» 8 See above § 31. 

19 To the question of Tryphio, whether Justin really believes in a millenial reign, Justin 

replies. Dial. cam Tryph. c. 80: ‘QuoAéyyod cot Kai mpdrepov, Sti bya pev Kat GA2oe 


¢ 


a 


CHAP. IIL—CATHOLIC CHURCH. § 52. SPURIOUS WRITINGS. [57 


_and sttbsequently by the antagonists of the Montanists.*” The 
thousand years’ reign was represented as the great Sabbath 
which should begin very soon; or, as many supposed, after the 
lapse of the six thousand years of the world’s age,’ with the 
first resurrection, and should afford great joys to the righteous.” 
Till then the souls of the departed were to be kept in the under 
world,?* and the opinion that they should be taken up to heaven 
immediately after death, was considered a gnostic heresy.* 

In reference to the advancement of the various Christian inter- 
ests, and in like manner also to the confirmation of those develop- 
ments of doctrine already mentioned, the spurious literature 
whieh had arisen and continually increased among Jews and 
Christians, was of great importance. The Christians made use of 
such expressions and writings as had already been falsely attrib- 
uted by Jews, from partiality to their religion, to honored per- 
sons of antiquity,”® and altered them in part to suit their own 


ToAAol TattTa opovodper, Oc Kal TévTw¢ ExioTacbe (you Jews), TodTo yevnabuevov" ToA- 
Aove 0 ad Kai tOv [uy?] tic KaOaptic Kal etoeBoi¢ évTwr Xpiotiavav yvdune TodTO LH} 
yvwpivery éojpuavd cot. Tove yap Aeyouévove piv Xptotiavove, dvtac dé Gbéove Kat 
GoeBeic alpectorac, tt kata TdvTa BAdoonua Kal GOea Kai dvénra diWdcKovow, eoAAwod 
cot.—Ei ydp Kai ovveBadeTe bpeic¢ Tici Aeyouévotg Xptotiavoic, kai Tovto uy duoAoyod- 
atv, GAAG Kai BAaconuetv ToAUGot Tov Oedv 'ABpudp, Kai Tov Bedv "IoudK, Kai Tov Bedv 
‘Taxo@, of kat Aéyovor uA sivat vexpGv dvacraocry, Ada Gua TH drotvacKey Tac Puyas 
aitov dvadauBdvecba sic Tov odpavor, un broAGBnTE abtov¢e Xpiotiavovce.—’ Eyo de, 
kal et Tivéc cicw dpCoyvemuovec Kata wavTa Xpiotiavol, kai capKic dvdoracl yevycecOat 
éxtotaueba, kai vida ety év ‘lepovoadju olxodounGeion Kai koounbeion Kai rAaTvvOeion, 
Oc ol mpod7tat ‘lefeximA (xxxvii. 12, ss.) kai "Hoatag (Ixv. 17, 'ss.) kal of GAOL duodo- 
yoto.v. Dallaeus, Minscher, Minter, Schwegler, and others, have regarded the insertion 
of jf as necessary in the first sentence. On the other side see Semisch, Justin d. M. ii. 
468, and Otto ad h. |. 20 See above § 48, note 14. 

21 Apoc. xx. 4-6. This calculation was based on Ps. xc. 4. Cf. Barnabas, c.15. Justin. 
Dial. c. Tryph. c. 81. Iren. v. 23; and is also found in the Rabbins of this period, see 
Corodi’s Gesch. d. Chiliasmus, i. 328. 

22 See the descriptions in Justin. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 80, after Is. Ixv. 17, ss. Iren. v. 
25-36. Tertull. adv. Mare. iii. 24. 

_ 23 In the Greek-fathers "Ardy (the ‘DIiNw of the Hebrews), cf. Tertull. de Anima, c.7: 

Si quid tormenti sive solatii anima praecerpit in carcere seu diversorio inferum; in igni 
vel in sinu Abrahae: probata erit corporalitas animae.. Adv. Marcion, iv. c. 34: Eam 
itaque regionem sinum dico Abrabae, etsi non coelestem, sublimiorem tamen inferis, 
interim refrigerium praebituram animabus justorum, donec consummatio rerum resurrec- 
tionem omnium plenitadine mercedis expungat. A copious description of”Acdy¢, ywpiov br6- 
yetov, év © $0¢ Kéopov ob éxtAdurret, see in Hippolytus adv. Platon. (Opp. ed. Fabricius, 
i. 220). Cf. J. A. Dietelmaieri Hist. dogm. de desc. Christi ad inf. ed. 2. Altorf. 1762. 8, ¢. 4. ii, 

% Justinus above, note 19, Tertull. below § 53, note 40. 

*5 See: above §31. Thus, verses were falsely attributed to Orpheus, respecting the unity 
of God, in which even Abraham and Moses appeared (L. C. Valckenaeri diatr. de Aristobulo 

~ Judaeo, ed. J. Luzac. Lugd. Bat. 1806. 4, p. 13; Lobeck, Aglaophamus, i. 438, ss.), to 
Linus, Homer, and Hesiod, in favor of the Sabbath (Valckenaer, p. 8, 116. Valckenaer 


. 


» 


158 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I1.—A.D. 117-193. 


wants, such as the book of Enoch and the fourth book of Ezra.** 
But writings of this kind were also fabricated anew by Christ- 
ians, who quieted their conscience respecting the forgery, with 
the idea of their good intention,*” for the purpose of giving 
greater impressiveness to their doctrines and admonitions by the 
reputation of respectable names, of animating their suffering 
brethren to steadfastness, and of gaining over their opponents to 
Christianity.” Hence there now appeared, in particular the Tes- 
taments of the twelve Patriarchs,*® and the ’AvaBartixdy *Hoaiov,** 
the latter so peculiafin its contents, that in later times heretics 
only could still use it. ° To make an impression on the heathen, 
supposititious predictions, relating especially to Christ and* the 
last things, were constantly ascribed to the Sybil. To them 
were added those of Hystaspes.* 


regards Aristobulus as the deceiver, though without sufficient reason), to Sophocles, 
Zischylus, and Euripides, respecting the unity, power, and righteousness of God (Graecae 
tragoediae principum, Aeschyli, Sophoclis, Euripidis, num ea, quae supersunt, et genuina 
omnia sint. Scrips. Aug. Boeckhius. Heidelb. 1808. 8, p. 146). Justin Martyr, Athena- 
goras, and Clement of Alexandria, make use of these productions. 

26 See above § 31, notes 2 and 3. 

27 The anecdote respecting the Acta Pauli et Theclae is characteristic, apud. Tertull. 
de Baptismo c. 17: Quod si quae Paulo perperam adscripta sunt ad licentiam mulierum 
docendi tinguendique, defendunt, sciant in Asia presbyterum, qui eam scripturam con- 
struxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli 
fecisse, loco decessisse. 

28 A one-sided view is given by Mosheim de causis suppositorum librorum inter 
Christianos saec. i. et ii. (Dissertt. ad Inst. eccl. pertin. vol. i. p. 217, ss.) Comp. C.J 
Nitzsch de Testamentis xii. Patriarcharum, p. 1, ss. 

22 In Fabricii Cod. pseudepigraphus v. t. i..496. Comp. Veesenmeyer’s Beitrage zur 
Gesch. d. Literatur u. Reformation. Ulm. 1792.8, 8.1, # In their apocalyptic part, they 
are modeled after the Apocalypse of John, Daniel, and especially the Book of Enoch. See 
Liicke’s Einl. in die Offenb. Joh. S. 123. Wieseler’s die 70 Wochen u. die 63 Jahrwochen 
d. Proph. Daniel. §. 226. C. J. Nitzsch de Test. xii. Pariarcharum comm. Viteberg. 1810. 4. 

30 Extant in an Ethiopic version, Ascensio Isaiae vatis aethiop. cum versione lat. 
anglicanaque, ed. Rich. Laurence. Oxon. 1819, 8: the old Latin fragments which Angelo 
oriticieel by Nitzch in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1830, ii. 209: ensitior Latin translation 
preserved entire (ed. Venetiis. 1522. 8), has been recently published by me, together with 
the Greek fragment in Epiphanius, and the Latin in Mai: Vetus translatio latina Visionis 
Jesaiae, ed. atque praefatione et notis illustra (a Gottingen Easter Programm). That the 
work was not necessarily written before 68, as Laurence supposes, is shown by Gfrorer 
Jahrhundert des Heils, i. 66. Comp. Gesenius Commentar tiber den Jesaias, i. 45, 
Liicke, 1. c. §..125. 

31 See above § 31, note 4. According to Bleek in Schleiermacher’s, De Wette’s, and 
Liicke’s theol. Zeitschrift, ii. 231, old Jewish and Christian oracles were composed under 
Hadrian by an Egyptian Christian, and, after several enlargements, put together so as to 
constitute books iii-v. ‘The eighth book belongs to the time of Marcus Aurelius, books 
vii. and vi. to the third century, i. and ii. to the middle of the fifth. 

32 Ammianus Marcellinus, xxiii. 6: Magic is divinoram incorruptissimus cultus, cujus 


\ 


CHAP. IIIL—CATHOLIC CHURCH. §53. ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. 159 


§ 53. 
ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. 


As the prevailing dtsire was now to compare the Mosaic in- 
stitute with the Christian, of which it was regarded as the type, 
and to trace out an analogy even in their individual features, 
the idea soon occurred to the mind, of comparing the Christian 
officers in the church with the Mosaic priesthood,’ and of giving 
them the very same titles (summus sacerdos, sacerdotes, Levi- 


tae). As a body, they were called, by way of eminence, «Ajjpoc, * 
Viz., Tov Oeov, KAnpixoi ;” among the Latins, ordo ;* in opposition . 


scientiae saeculis priscis multa ex Chaldaeorum arcanis Bactrianus addidit Zoroastres: 
deinde Hystaspes rex prudentissimus Darii pater. The latter traveled into India 'to the 
Brahmins, eorumque monitu rationes mundani motus et sideruam, purosque sacrorum ritus 
quantum colligere potuit eruditus, ex his quae didicit, aliqua sensibus magorum infudit: 
quae illi cum disciplinis praesentiendi futura, per suam quisque progeniem, posteris 
actatibus tradunt. Ch. G. F. Walch de Hystaspe ejusque vaticiniis apud Patres i. d. 
Commentationes Soc. Reg. Gotting. i. 3.—So early as in the Praedicatio Petri (which 
belongs to the beginning of the second century, see § 27, note 5) the Sybil and Hystaspes 
are recommended (cf. Clemens Alex. Strom. vi. p. 761), and by Justin Martyr several 
times quoted. According to Celsus ap. Orig. c. Cels. vii. p. 368, they were adulterated 
and used by a Christian party, whom he thence calls 2<8vAAsorai, lib. v. p. 272. 

1 The whole Christian world is called, in 1 Pet. ii. 5, lepdtrevma dyov: v. 9, BaciAsiov 
lepdtevua. The passage in Clem. Rom. Ep. 1, ec. 40, speaks of the Old Testament 
economy, and does not belong here. On the contrary, traces of a peculiar Christian 
priesthood appear in the Test. xii. Patr., cf. Nitzsch de Test. xii. Patr. p..19. Also in 
Polycratis Ep: ad Victorem’apud Euseb. v. 24,§ 1: ‘Iwdvyge, d¢ éyevijOn iepede 7d wéTAaAOV 
medopynkes, although wéradov (cf. Exod. xxix. 6; Lev. viii. 9) stands here only tropi- 
cally; cf. J. F. Cotta de lamina pontificali App. Joannis, Jacobi et Marci. Tubing. 1775. 
4. The idea is first found in a distinct form in Tertullian, ' 

2 1 Pet. v. 3, Christians are called xAjpot, a band belonging to God. In like manner, 
Ignatius, Ep. ad Eph. c. 11: 6 kAgjpoc *Edeciny tév yptotiavav. - In a narrower sense 
KAjjpoc TOv waptipwv in Epist. Eccl. Vienn. et Lugd. ap. Euseb. v. 1,§ 4. The clergy 
are called so early as in Tertullian, clerus, and they afterward cited in their own favor, 
Numb. xviii. 26, Deut, x/9, xviii. 1,2: xépiog abtic KAjpde Toig Aevitarg ; though here 


- God is xAjpog, not the Levites. In like manner, they appropriated to themselves in the 


fourth century, the names christiani and christianitas as their peculiar right (ef. Cod. Theod. 


vy. 5, 2; xii. 1, 50 and 123; xii. 1, 123, du Fresne glossar. ad h.v.) cf. J. H. Boehmer de - 


differentia inter Clericos et Laicos diss. (xii. dissertt. juris eccl. ant. ad Plinium, &e., p: 
340, ss.). A different view is given by Neander, K. G. i. i. 333. 

* Borrowed from the town councillors in the municipal boroughs, who, acesirdaie to 
the analogy of the Roman senate, were styled ordo Decurionum, or ordo, in opposition to 
plebs and plebeii; cf. Digest. lib. 1. Tit. 2. de Decurionibus. Boehmer, 1. c. p. 342. 
Hoeck’s rom. Gesch. vom. Verfall der Republ. i. ii. 159. Even the verb ordinare, i. e., 
ordinem dare (Sueton. Vespas. c. 23), had already received in Cyprian an ecclesiastical 
use. 


. 


160 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. Il.—A.D. 117-193. 


to the Aadc, plebs, Aaixoi.t The idea, however, of a universal 
Christian priesthood was still maintained.’ The influence of 
the bishop necessarily increased when synods began to be com- 
mon,’ at which thé bishop chiefly represented his. congregation 
(mapotxia)," although the presbyters also had a voice along with 
him.® All congregations were independent of one another, al- 
though some had a peculiar reputation mfore than others, on ac- 
count of many circumstances, ex. gr. their apostolic origin, the 
importance of the city to which they belonged, or because they 
were mother churches. Many such circumstances united in 
procuring for Rome, particularly in the west, an especial repu- 
tation,even so early as the period of which we are speaking.° 


* So Aaéc stands also in opposition to the Jewish priests, 2 Chron. xxxvi.14; Lukei. 10, 21 

5 Tren. iv. 20. Omnes enim'justi sacerdotalem habent ordinem. Tertullian. de Exhortat. 
Castitatis c. 7: Nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus? Differentiam inter ordinem et plebem 
constituit ecclesiae auctoritas, et honor per ordinis concessum sanctificatus. Adeo ubi 
ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tinguis, et sacerdos es tibi solus. 
Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici. Igitur si habes jus sacerdotis in temet ipso, ubi 
necesse est, habeas oportet etiam disciplinam sacerdotis, ubi necesse est, habere jus 
sacerdotis. (Cf. de Baptismo c. 17, de Monog.c. 7, 12, de Corona mil.c. 3. See Neander’s 
Antignosticus, §. 154.) Against the impartial explanation of this language given by Nic. 
Rigaltius: Gabr. Aubespine (Albaspinaeus) de l'eucharistie. Controversy concerning 
offerre in this place (see on it below note 15), and de jure laicorum sacerdotali. For 
Rigaltius (Hugo Grotius) de administratione coenae, ubi pastores non sunt. 1638. Claudius 
Salmasius and others. On the other side are D. Petavius, H. Dodwell, and others. 
The history of the controversy may be found in Chr. M. Pfaffii diss. de consecratione 
veterum eucharistica § 23 (in his Syntagma dissertt. theologg. p. 533). Cotta and Gerhardi 
loc. theol. x. 21. Cf. Boehmer, l. c. p. 272, 485. Neander’s Denkw. i. 179. 

6 The first synods held against the Montanists (160-170), Euseb. v. 16, regularly 
returned, and are first mentioned in Tertullian de Jejun: Aguntur praeterea per Graecias 
illa certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per quae et altiora quaeque in commune 
tractantur, et ipsa repraesentatio totius nominis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur, 
Perhaps an imitation of the Amphictyonic Council, which still continned (Pausan, x. 8). 
Comp. Ueber den Ursprang der Kirchenversammlungen in (J. M. Abele) Magazin fir 
Kirchenrecht u. K. G. Leipzig. 1778. St. 2. 8. 479, ff; W. L. C. Ziegler in Henke’s 
neuem Magazin fiir Religionsphilosophie, &c. i. 125, ff. 

7 Jrenaeus apud Euseb. v. 24,§ 5. The Christians considered themselves on this earth 
as 7upolKol, according to 1 Peter, i. 17;.ii.11. Comp. Epist. ad Diognet. c. 5: Iarpidag 
olxodaww iWiac, GAN’ Oe mdporkol,—éni yi¢ dLatpiBovoty, GAN ev obpav® roArrevovtau. 
Hence the churches designated themselves companies of strangers, Clemens Rom. init. 
Epist.i. ‘H éxxAqjotia rod Geod 7 mapotkovoa ‘Pony rR excdgoig Tov Geod TH topoixotoy 
KépivOov.. In like manner Epist. Eccl. Smyrn. apud Euseb. iv. 15, § 1. 

8 The ancient form is apparent from the introduction of the Conc. Eliberitani, ann. 305 : 
Cum concedissent sancti et religiosi Episcopi—item Presbyteri—residentibus cunctis, 
adstantibus diaconibus et omni plebe, Episcopi universi dixerunt. 

® To these belonged also the support of other churches. Dionys. Corinth. ad Rom. 
Epist. (ap. Euseb. iv. 23): ’E& dpyjc yap tuiv &€oc¢ éoti tovTo, maévtac piv ddeAgod¢ 
Totkidwc ebepyereiv, ExkAnoiasy Te TOAAGIC Taig KaTa Tadcay TOALY éddia wéuTrELD « 
Ode wev Thy Tov deouévan meviav dvapiyovrac, tv peTdAdoie d2 ddeAgoic imdpxovaew 
étiyopnyobvrac. 


8 
faa 


CHAP. Ill—CATHOLIC CHURCH. § 53. ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. 161 


Public worship was extremely simple. Without temples, 
altars, or images, the Christians assembled in houses appointed 
for the purpose, and, in times of persecution, in solitary places," 
sometimes even in the night, particularly on the night before 
Easter.' The members of the church brought with them vol- 
untary offerings, from which was taken what was necessary for 
the solemnization of the Lord’s supper (ebyaptoria), and the 
agape,'® which was still usually connected with it. The re- 
mainder belonged to the clergy and the poor, for whom also they 
provided by monthly contributions.'* After the clergy had be- 


10 Celsus ap. Orig, c. Cels. viii. p. 389: Bapode cal dydApata Kal veds ldptcbat gedyovet: 
Minucii Felicis Octavius, c.10: Cur nullas aras habent, templa nulla, nulla nota simulacra? 
Toward tle end of the second century, buildings appear to have been devoted here and 
there exclasively to the worship of God. Tertull. de Idolol. c, 7: Ab idolis in ecclesiam 
venire, de adversarii officina in domum Dei venire. Comp. Chron. Edessen. aboye, § 39, 
note 4. The expression, éx«xAnoia, is frequently used even so early of the places of 
assembling, ex. gr., Tertull. de Cor. mil. c. 3, below, note 25. Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 
p- 846. 

u Tertull. ad Hives ii, ce. 4: Quis (infidelis maritus uxorem christianam) nocturnis 
conyocationibus, si ita oportuerit, a latere suo adimi libenter feret? Quis denique 
* solemnibus paschae abnoctantem securus sustinebit? Lactant. Institt. vii. 19: Haec est 
nox, quae a nobis propter adventum regis ac dei nostri pervigilio celebratur. Cujus 
noctis duplex ratio est, quod in ea et vitam tum recepit, qaum passus est, et postea orbis 
terrae regnum recepturus est. Hieronymus comm. in Matth. lib. iv. ad Matth. xxv. 6: 
Traditio Judaeorum est, Christum media nocte venturum in similitudinem Aegyptii 
temporis, quando pascha celebratum est, et exterminator venit, et Dominus super taber- 
nacula transiit, et sanguine agni postes nostrarum frontium censecrati sunt. Unde reor et 
traditionem apostolicam permansisse, ut in die vigiliarum Paschae ante noctis dimidium 
populos dimittere non liceat, exspectantes adventum Christi. Et postquam illud tempus 
transierit, securitate praesumta, festum cuncti agunt diem. 

12 Not always, indeed, on account of the persecutions. According to Tertull. de Corona 
militis, c. 3, the eucharist was celebrated even in antelucanis coetibus. Also in Justin’s 
description, Apol.i.c. 85. the agape is not mentioned : *Ezecra (after the common prayers) 
mpoodépeTat TO TpoecTate TGV ddeAGGv aptoc, kai moTHpLov bdatoc Kai Kpduaroc. Kai 
otto¢g AaBay aivov Kai ddfav TH ratpi TOV bAwY did TOD dvdpaTo¢g Tov viod Kai Tod 
avevpatog TOU dyiov dvanéuret, Kai ebyaptatiav inép Tod KaTngét@obat TovTwY Tap’ 
abrod éxi Todd moteitat. Ob ovvTedécavtog Tag ebyd¢ Kai THY ebyapioTiav, mac 4 
rape abc éxevonuei Aéywv dunv.—érevdonuycavtog TavtTog Tov Aaod of Kahovpevot 
Tap’ met | dtakovor Oidéucw éxdcTw TOY Tapé6vTwY uEeTUAaBely Gx TOD EebyapltoTnbévTOg 
dprou Kat olvov Tév tdaToc, Kai Toi¢ ob Tapovoty dmodépovor. A description of the 
agape is given in Tertullian’s Apologet. c. 39: Coena nostra de nomine rationem sui 
ostendit, id vocatur quod dilectio penes graecos. Quantiscunque sumptibus constet, 
lucrum est pietatis nomine facere sumptum, siquidem inopes quosque refrigerio isto 
javamus. Non prius discumbityr. quam oratio ad Deum praegustetur; editur quantum 
esurientes cupiunt, bibitur quantum pudicis est utile. Ita saturantur, ut qui meminerint 
etiam ‘per noctem adorandum deum sibi esse; ita fabulantur, ut qui sciunt dominum audire. 
Post aquam manualem et lumina, ut quisque de scripturis sanctis vel de proprio ingenio 
potest, provocatur in medium Deo canere; hine probatur quomodo biberit. Aeque oratio 
convivium dirimit, &c. 

13 Tertull. Apolog. c. 39: Modicam unusquisque stipem menstrua die, vel quum velit, 
et si modo velit, et si modo possit, apponit. Hence Cyprian. Ep. 28 and 34: divisiones 


vou. 1—11 


162 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 117-193. 


come a priestly caste, it was the e necessary te look for a 
sacrifice in Christianity, because ancient world generally 
could not conceive of divine worship without sacrifice. For 
this purpose the solemnity of the supper presented several points 
vf comparison. First of all, the prayer, which, indeed, had al- 
ways been considered spiritual sacrifice.‘* But next, the gifts 
of the church members, as also the bread and wine set apart by 
the bishop by prayer as holy food, might be considered as offer- 
ings dedicated to God. Of both the same expressions were used, 
mpoogéperv, mpogdopd, offerre, oblatio: both were compared with 
the Old Testament sacrifices and first fruits. As, accordingly, 


mensurnae, sportulae presbyteroram. Ep. 66: sportulantes fratres. Ziegler iber die 
Einkiinfte des Kleras u. d. Kirche in den ersten drei Jahr., in Henke’s neuem Magazin 
fir Religionsphilosophie. Bd. 4, 8.1, ff. Miter primord. Eccl. Afric. p. 63, ss. 

14 1 Peter ii. 5, Justin. M. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 116: ‘Hweic—dpycepatixoy td dAnOivdv 
yévog éopév Tod Oeot-—otb déxerar d2 zap’ obdevde Ovoiag 6 Oedc, et uy Ota TeV iepéwy 
airod. ©. 117: Idoag oby did tod dvoparo¢g toitov Avoiac, d¢ mapédaxed “Incoie 6 
Xporoc yivec@at, tovréctiv éxi TH edxaptoTia Tod dpTov Kai Tod moTNpioV Tag év wavri 
TOm® The Yio yevouévac ind TOY Xprotiavan, mporasov. 6 Gedc, papropet evapéctoug 
dmdpxew abTto.— Ori pév ody Kai ebyai Kai ebxaptoriat, br0 Tv akiov yevouerat, réAevat 
Hovat Kal ebdpectot eiot TH Oe Ovoiat, kai abrog Onut. Taira yap péva kai Xproreavol 
maptAaBov roteiv, Kai éx’ Gvayvicer 02 THE TpOdHC ab’TGv EnpGc Te Kai bypac, év H Kai 
Tov waOouc, 6 rérovlle Ov aitove 6 vidg Tod Be0d, wéuvyTat. 

15 Justin. M. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 41: Ilept 02 trav év mav7i rérw ie’ Hudy tév eOvev 
mpoogepomévav avt@ OvotGv, tovrécts tod aprov tH¢ ebyaplotiag Kai Tod woTNpiov 
éuoiws The ebyaptotiacg mpoAéyer T6Te (namely, Mal. i. 10-12). Irenaeus iv. 17, 5: Sed et 
suis discipulis dans consilium, primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis, non quasi indigenti 
sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi, nec ingrati sint, eum, qui ex creatura est panis, accepit, et 
gratias egit, dicens: Hoc est corpus meum. Et calicem similiter, qui est ex ea creatura, 
quae est secundum-nos, suum sanguinem confessus est: et novi Testamenti novam docuit 
oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab apostoli accipiens, in universo mando offert Deo, ei qui 
alimenta nobis praestat, primitias suoram muneram in novo Testamento, de quo in xm. 
Prophetis Malachias sic praesignificavit (Mal.i.10, 11), &e. Cap. xviii.1: Igitur Ecclesiae 
oblatio, qaam Dominus docuit offerri in universo mundo, puram sacrificiam reputatum est 
apud Deum, et acceptum est ei: non quod indigeat a nobis sacrificium, sed quoniam is 
qui offert glorificatur ipse in eo quod offert, si acceptetur munus ejus. Irenaei fragm. II. 
ed. Pfaffii: IIpocgépouev yap TO Oe@ tiv Gptov Kal Td KOTHpLoy Tig ebdoyiac, edyaptor- 
obvtec abt@, 6ti TH yj ExéAEvoE Exdboas Toe Kaprove TObTOUE ei¢ TpOgHY HuETépar, Kai 
évraifa tiv mpocgopay. TeAécavtec Exkadodpev TO MvEeiua TO Gytov, bTwe arodHrvyn THY 
Ouctay tabtny Kai Tov dptov cua Tod Xptorod Kai Td woTHpLov 76 aiva ToD Xpiorod, iva 
of petadaBérvtec tobTwr Tov dvtitinar THE ddécewe TOY GuapTiGy Kal Tie Cwic aiwviov 
Tbywow. Cf. Chr. M. Pfaffii Diss. de oblatione Veterum eucharistica, in his Syntagma 
dissertt. theologg. Stutt. 1720, p. 219, ss. Staudlin’s History of the dogmavof the sacrifice 
of the Lord’s Supper, in Schleusner's u. Staudlin’s Gdtting. Biblioth. d. neuesten theol. 
Literatur, ii. ii. 163. This idea of oblations is expressed not only in the sacrificial prayers 
of the old liturgies (see Constitt. Apost. viii. c. 12, comp. Pfaffii Syntagma, p. 378, ss.), but 
also even now in the commencing words of the canon missae of the Romish church: Pe 
igitur, clementissime pater—supplices rogamus ac petimus, uti accepta habeas ac bene- 
dicas haec dona, haec sa haec sancta sacrificia illibata (i. e., the still unconsecrated 

_ bread and wine). 





Sd 


CHAP. lil—CATHOLIC CHURCH. -§ 53. ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. 163 


the Mosaic law of fir uits, and soon, in consequence, the 


law of tithes also, appee to be still valid,’® the Christians ob- 
tained in them a rule for their oblations, without, however, any 
kind of external compulsion being used for enjoining the ob- 
servance of them. The eucharist being considered the symbol 
of the intimate communion of the church with itself and with 
Christ, it was also sent to the absent as a token of this 
communion,'’ and taken by those who were present to their 
homes." 

Baptism was preceded by instruction,’® fasting, and prayer. 
The baptism of children was not universal, and was even occa- 
sionally disapproved.”® -While Christians were supposed to be 
engaged in constant warfare with the world and the devil under 
the banner of Christ,*' they generally used the sign of the cross,” 


16 Trenaeus,. iv, 18, 1: Offerre igitur opportet Deo primitias ejus creatura, sicut et 
Moyses ait: Non apparebis vacuus ante conspectum Domini Dei tui (Deut. xvi. 16)— 
2: Et non genus oblationum reprobatum est: oblationes enim et illic, oblationes autem 
et hic: sacrificia in populo, sacrificia in Ecclesia: sed species immutata est tantum. 
quippe cum jam non a servis, sed a liberis offeratur. Origenes in Num. Hom. xi. 1: 
Primitias omnium frugum, omniumque pecudum sacerdotibus lex mandat offerri—Hanc 
ergo legem observari etiam secundum literam, sicut et alia nonnulla, necessarium puto. 
2: Quomodo abundat justitia nostra plus quam scribarum et Pharisaeorum, si illi de fruc- 
tibus terrae suae gustare non audent, priusquam primitias sacerdotibus offerant, et Levitis 
decimas separent: et ego nihil horum faciens, fructibus terrae ita abutar, ut sacerdos 
nesciat, Levites ignoret, divinum altare non sentiat? Constitutt. Apost. ii-c. 25: Al tére 
Guciat, viv edyal; Kai deqoec, kai ebyaptotiat: al réTe Gxapyai, kai dexarat, Kai dgarpé- 
uara Kat dpa, viv mpocgopal, ai did TOv bciwv éxickirav Tpoogepduevar Kvpin TO Oe@ 
dia ’Inood Xprotod tov brép aitGy Gxobavévroc. 

-47 Cf. Justin above, note 12. Irenaeus ap. Euseb. v. 24, § 5: The presbyters of one 
eharch éxeurov ebyaptoriay to those of another. 

18 Tertull. ad Uxorem, ii.c. 5. De Orat.c. 14. 

19 On the creed see above, § 51, note 13. 

20 Tertull. de Baptismo, c. 18: Itaque pro cujusque personae conditione ac. dispositione, 
etiam aetate, cunctatio baptismi utilior est: praecipue tamen circa parvulos. Quid enim 
necesse est, sponsores etiam periculo ingeri? quia et ipse per mortalitatem destituere 
promissiones suas possunt, et proventu malae indolis falli. Ait quidem Dominus: Nolite 
illos prohibere ad me venire (Matth. xix. 14). Veniant ergo, dum adolescunt, veniant dum 
discunt, dum, quo veniant, docentur: fiant Christiani, quam Christum nosse potuerint. 
Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum? Cautius agetur in saeculari- 
bus, ut cui substantia terrena,non creditur, divina credatur. Norint petere salutem ut 
‘petenti dedisse videaris. Non minore de causa innupti quoque procrastinandi, in quibus 
tentatio praeparata est tam virginibus per maturitatem, quam viduis per vagationem, 







donee aut nubant, aut continentiae corroborentur. Si qui pondus intelligant baptismi, 


Magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationem: fides integra secura est de salute. Cf 
G. Walli Hist. baptismi infantum, lat. vertit, J. L. Schlosser (P. i. Bremae. 1748, P. ii 
Hamb. 1753. 4). P. i. p. 57, ss. 

* Tertull. ad Martyres, c. 3: Vocati sumus ad militiam Dei vivi jam tunc, cum in 
sacramenti verba respondimus, &c. De Corona mil. ce. 11. 

22 Tertull. ady. Marc. iii. 18, de Cor. militis, c. 3. But no adoration of the cross. Minucius 
Fel. c. 29: Cruces etiam nec*colimus, nec optamus. ° 


164 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. H.—AD. 117-193. 


and often exorcism,”* as a powerful defense against the machi- 
nations of eyil spirits. Probably they already began to apply 
the latter in the case of those persons who, renouncing the prince 
of this world, prepared themselves for baptism.** Many new 
usages were connected with baptism itself tovensil the end of the 
second century.”° 

‘The concluding of a marriage was announced by the bishop 
of the church; and with this was very naturally connected the 
giving of his blessing on the new union.*® Second marriages 
were condemned, by many in all cases,” and began to be ex- 
pressly disallowed in the case of the clergy.2* But when the 


23 Tertull. de Idololatr. c. 11, of the Christian Thurarius: Qua constantia exorcizabit 
alumnos suos (i. e., the demons, ironically), quibus domum saam cellariam praestat? De 
Cor. milltis, c. 11, of the Christian soldiers: Quos interdiu exorcismis fugavit, noctibus 
defensabit, incumbens et requiescens super pilum, quo perfossum est latus Christi? 

24 Barnabas Epist. c. 16: Ilpd rod quae miorevout TO Bed, HY Hedy TO KATOLKATH PLOY 
the Kapdiac dBaprév Kai dobevic—oixoc dapévur, bia Td rately boa Hv évavtia TO OeG- 
From this view, the application of exorcism in the case of candidates for baptism resulted 
as a matter of course. 

25 The ceremony of baptism was still very simple, as described in Justin Apol. ic. 79. 
Otherwise in Tertull. de Cor. mil.c.3: Aquam adituri, ibidem, sed et aliquanto prius in 
ecclesia, sub antistitis manu contestamur, nos renunciare diabolo (éworéccecfat 61a362) 
et pompae et angelis ejus. Dehinc ter mergitamar, amplius aliquid respondentes quam 
dominus in Evangelio determinavit. Inde suscepit lactis et mellis concordiam praegusta- 
mus (qua infantamur, adv. Marc. i. c. 14): exque ea die lavacro quotidiano per totam heb- 
domadam abstimemus. There is an opinion that the last-mentioned rite was borrowed 
from the heathen mysteries; see Mosheim de rebus Christ. ante Const. M. p. 321. An 
excursus to the whole passage is given in Neander’s Antignosticus, 8-149, f_—Tertull. 
de Baptismo, c. 7: Exinde egressi de lavacro perungimur benedicta unctione (ypicuatz) de 
pristina disciplina, qua ungi oleo de cornu in sacerdotium solebant. (This anointing, ac- 

. cording to Thilo Acta Thomae, p. 177, was of Gnostic origin.)) Cap. 8: Dehinc manus 
imponitur, per benedictionem advocans et invitans spiritaum sanctum (yerpoGecia). 
Dallaeus de duobus Latinorum ex unctione sacramentis. Genev. 1659. 4, p. 126, ss. 
Neander’s K. G. i. i. 543. 

26 Ignat. Epist. ad Polycarp. §5. Tertull ad Uxor. ii. c.9: Unde sufficiam ad enarran- 
dam felicitatem ejus matrimonii, quod ecclesia conciliat, et confirmat oblatio, et obsignatum 
angeli renunciant, pater rato habet? De Pudicit. c. 4: Penes nos occultae quoque con- 
junctiones, i. e., non prius apud Ecclesiam professae, juxta moechiam et fornicationem 
judicari periclitantur. Cf. Jo. Seldeni uxor Ebraica, lib. ii. c. 28. Concerning the marriage 
of the first Christians see in (Abele) Mag. f. Kirchenrecht. Bd. 1,8. 261, ff. Miinter’s 
Sinnbilder d. alten Christen. Heft 2, 8. 112, ff. . 

27 Athenagoras Deprec.c. 28: ‘O debdrepoc (yduoc) ebxpenye éort wotyeta. On the other 
hand, Hermae Past. lib. i. mand. iv. 4: Si vir vel mulier alicujus decesserit, et nupserit 
aliquis illorum, numquid peccat? Qui nubit non peccat, inquit, sed si per se manserit, 
magnum sibi conquirit honorem apud Dominum. So also Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. p. 548. 
Cf. Cotelerius ad Hermae, I. c. 

78 Tertull. ad Uxor. i. 7: Disciplina ithe et praescriptio apostoli—digamos non sinit 
praesidere. Yet de Monagam. 12: Quot enim et digami praesident apud vos, insultantes 
utique apostolo! Derived from 1 Tim. iii. 2. Tertullian read also in Lev. xxi.: Sacerdotes 
mei non plus nubent (de Exhort. castit. 7). Comp. Heydenreich’s Pastoralbriefe Pauli. 
Bd. 1, 8. 166, ff. 








CHAP. Il] CATHOLIC CHURCH, §53. ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. 165 


Moutanists forbade them universally, they met with opposition. 
Fasts, which were looked upon as a suitable preparation for - 
prayer, and celibacy, were valued, but continued to be left to 
the free choice of every one,”® although the opinion of Philo, 
that the marriage intercourse was something that rendered a - 
person unclean, had been already introduced.*® Many Christ- 
ians devoted themselves to a certain abstinence (doxyzai) ;** but 
all forced and artificial asceticism was disapproved.” The only 
custom of the kind which was universal was the celebration of 
the passion-time of Jesus by a fast; but this was observed in 
very different ways. In other cases, for voluntary fasting and 
prayer (stationes, stationum semijejunia, Tert. de Jeun. ce. 13) 
they chose Wednesday and Friday.* Sunday and the Sabbath 


#9 Even for the clergy: G. Calixti de Conjug. clericoruam. Helmst. 1631, ad: Henke, 
ibid. 1783. 4. ii. 181. Theiner’s Einftihrung der erzwungenen Ehelosigkeit bei den 
Geistl. i. 69 

30 Semisch, Justin d. M. i. 199. 

31 This appellation formerly applied to the athletae (Plato de Republ. iii. p. 297), was 
afterward by Philo (de Praem: et Poen. 914, 917, 920) to the exercises of virtue in the 
wise. So also among the heathen philosophers (Arrian. diss. in Epict. iii. c. 12, repi don7j- 
cewe. Artemidorus, about 100, Oneirocrit. iv. c. 33, says of a philosopher, Alexander: 
*"Euede 02 abr@ Svtt avdpi daxyTy obre yar, obTe Kotvwviac, odTe TAODTOV). Athqnagorae 
Deprec. c. 28: Egpoig 0’ dv roAdove tay rap’ 7 wiv Kaidvdpac Kai yuvaixag Katayypaac- 
Kovtac dydmove, éAridt Tod ua?.A0v ovvécecbar TO Oe@. Tertull.de Cultu foem.11: Non enim 
et multi ita faciunt, et se spadonatui obsignant propter regnum Dei (Matth. xix. 12), tam 
fortem et utique permissam voluptatem sponte ponentes (continentes, éyxparetc, cf. de 
Vel. virg. 3)? Numquidnon aliqui ipsam Dei creaturam sibi interdicunt, abstinentes vino 
et animalibus esculentis, quorum fructus nulli periculo aut sollicitudini adjacent, sed humi- 
litatem animae suae in victus quoque castigatione Deo immolant? Galenus, see above, 
§ 41, note 16; cf. Sal. Deyling de Ascetis veterum, in ejusd. Observatt. sacr. lib. iii. 

22 Dionys. Corinth. (ap. Euseb. iv. 23), in his letter to the Gnossians, exhorts bishop 

. Pinytus, “ij Bapd Sopriov éxdvaykec Td mepl Gyveiac Toic GdeAgoic ExiTBévat, TIg.de Tay 
TOAAGY KaTacToyalecOai dofeveiac—Ex epist. Eccl. Vienn. et Lugd. ap. Euseb. v. 3: 
"AAKipsiddov yép Tivog && abtav, mavu abyyypdoy Brodvrag Biov, Kai undevdg dAwe TO 7pd- 
Tepov ueTaAauPdvortoc, GAN 7 dete wovw Kal bdatt Ypwuévov, Teplwuévov Te Kat év TH 
eipxtg obtw dudyewv, ’ATTédA@ weTad Tov npOTov dydva, dv év TH dugiledtpw Frvaev, 
arexaatoon, te py KaAGe ToLoin 6 AAKIBLaONC, UR XpauEevog Tog KTicuact Tod Geod Kai 
ahaa Tixov oxavddAor brorerbpevoc. metobeic 68 AAKLGidOnS TavTwY avédnv uEeTEAap- 
Bave kai nixapioteuro bed. 

33 Respecting the stationes, watches of milites Christi, which were usually continued 
till three o’clock in the afternoon, see Hermae Pastor iii. Sim. 5, and Fabricius ad h, 1. 
Gu. Beveregii Cod. canonum eccl. primitivae vindicatus, lib. iii. c. 10—Tertull. de Jejun. 

- ¢.2: Certe in evangelio illos dies jejuniis determinatos putant (Psychici), in quibus ablatus 

est sponsus (Matth. ix. 15): et hos esse jam solos legitimos jejuniorum christianorum. 
{De Orat.14; Die Paschae communis et quasi publica j jejuni religio est),—sic ef apostolos 

_ observasse, nullum aliud imponentes jugum certorum et in commune omnibus obeundorum 

jejuniorum : proinde nec stationum, quae et ipsae suos quidem dies habeant, quartae feria 
et sextae, passim tamen currant, neque sub lege praecepti, neque ultra supremam dici, 

-quando et orationes fere hora nona concludat, de Petri exemplo, quod actis refertur. {De 

Orat. 14: Statio de militari exemplo nonem accipit: nam et militia Deisumus). C.13- 


f 


166 .. FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I1L—A.D. 117-193. 


were observed as festivals; the latter, however, without Jewish 
superstition. In the celebration of the passover, there was a 
difference between the churches of Asia Minor and those of the 
west.** The former adhered to the Jewish passover feast, giving 
it a reference to Christ;*° the latter, on the other hand, kept 


Bene autem, quod et Episcopi universae plebi mandare jejunia assolent—ex aliqua solli- 
citudimis ecclesiasticae causa.—Irenaeus ad Victorem ap. Euseb. v. 24.4: Obdé yap Hovov 
rept THE Muspac Eotiv 7; 4 duguoByrnote, GRE Kak rept Tod eidove abrod Tis vynoreiag* of 
pev yap olovtat piav ipépav deiv abtove vnoteterv, ol d2 dbo, of 52 Kai mheiovac, oi 62 
TEecoapaKkovTa Hpac juspivdc Te Kal vuKTepivac aupueTpover THY Huépav adtay. On the 
last words see the Excursus in Heinichen. Euseb. t. iii. p. 377, ss.. I am inclined to read 
TH tuépa avray. “Others measure off forty hours along with their day” (uetpodot oby TH 
iépg), i. e., they fast the day which they celebrate as the passover, or the day of Christ's 
death (for in this there was a difference), and begin with the hour ofthe death (three o'clock, 
afternoon), 2 new forty hours’ fast till the resurection—Cf. Jo. Dallaeus de Jejuniis et qua- 
dragesima. Daventr. 1654. 8. 

%4 The older historians in taking the passover as the festival of the resurrection, misun- 
derstood the celebration practiced in Asia Minor. Different opinions. of the moderns: 
Gabr. Daniel de la discipline des Quartodécimans pour la célébration de la Pacque (in his 
Recueil de divers ouvrages philos., theolog., histor. Paris..1724. 4. iii. 473). Chr. A. Heu- 
mann Vera descriptio priscae contentionis inter Roman et Asiam de vero Paschate (in ejusd. 
Nova sylloge dissertat. i. 156, ss). J. L. Mosheim de reb. Christ. ante Const.\M. p. 435, ss. 
Neander im kirchénhist. Archiv. 1823, Heft 2,8. 90, ff. Kirchengesch. i. i. 511, ff J. W- 
Rettberg’s Paschastreit der alten Kirche, in Illgey’s Zeitschr. f. d. hist. Theol. ii. ii, 91. 
(Company remarks in the theol. Studien u. Krit. 1833, iv. 1149). 

35. The most important in this festival was the passover day, the 14th of Nisan, which, 
after it had been probably spent in fasting, closed with a Christian paschal meal (love- 
feast and Eucharist), (Epiphan. Haer. |. 1, dxag rob étove uiav quépav Tod Tacxa Gi2o- 
veixac dyovat. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, who defended, in the year 196, this solem- 
nity against the Romish bishop Victor, designates it in Euseb. v. 24, as a rypeiv Ty juépav 
The TeaocpeckaloeKdtne Tod xdoya Kata TO ebayyéAtov. The whole day, therefore, was 
kept, but it might be observed merely by fasting. Comp. Tertull. de Orat. c. 14, see above, 
note 33). In favor of this they appealed to a passage of the law, (Epiphan. Haer.1.1): drs 
éxixatdpatoc, b¢ ob motjoet TO Taoya TH TECCapecKatdeKdTy Tuépa Tod pHvoc. They 
said (apud Hippolytus in chron. Pasch. p. 6): éxoinoe To mdoxa 6 Xpiorig TéTe TH huépe 
kai éxabev: 610 xdpé Sci Gv tTpérov 6 Kipto¢g éxoinoev, obTw Toteiv.. In it they ate un- 
leavened bread, probably like the Jews, eight days through ; they said (Chrysostomus con- 
tra Jud. Orat. iii.ed. Montfaucon, i. 610): é7c wera Tod dbipov Td mdayxa éoriv, On the 
“contrary, there is no trace of a yearly festival of the resurrection among them, for this was 
kept every Sunday. Since the Christians of Asia Minor appealed in favor of their pass- 
over solemnity on the 14th Nisan to John, (Polycrates, 1. c.), and yet, according to his gospel 
Christ partook of the last sapper with his disciples so early-as thesl3th Nisan; an argu- 
ment has been lately deduced from this fact against the authenticity of John’s gospel, (Bret 
schneider Probabilia, p. 109, after him Strauss and Schwegler). To judge correctly of this 
matter we must set out with that which is remarked very truly respecting it by Socrates, 
Hist. ecel. v. 22: Obdayod toivvy 6 dxéarodog, obd2 ta ebayyédia Guybv dovdeiag Toi¢g TA 
Knpbyuart mpocedOovoty éméOnxav’ GALA THY EoptyY Tot mdoxa Kai Tag GARac éopTac 
Tidy, TH ebvyvouootyy Tov ebepyeTnDévTaV KaTéAtmOV.—oKOTdC uRY obv yéyove TUE 
arooréAote, ob rept Ruepav éopraoriKay vowobereiv, GAAG Biov dpOdv Kai THY OcocéBerav 
elonyjoacbur* éuol d2 daivetat, 6te Gowep GAAa TOAAA KaTa YOpae cuvAGerav traBer, 
obte Kai 4 Tod naoya éopriy map’ Exdoroue éx Gvvybeiag Tevdg idiaovcar Ecye Tv Tapa- 
THPHOLY, dtd TS uNdéva THY UTOCTOAwWY, Oe EnV, uNDevi VevouobeTyKEévas Tepi abtijc. In 
the Christian assemblies the Jewish passover was at first kept up, but observed with 


PE BT a ee Ma 


CHAP. HI—CATHOLIC CHURCH. § 53. ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. 167 


up the recollection of the death and resurrection of Christ, as in 
every week, so with greater solemnity every year, at the pass- 
over festival, on the corresponding days of the week, so that the 
passover Friday was always regarded by them as dies paschae. 
When Polycarp visited Rome, about 160, he had a conference 
on this point with the Romish bishop Anicetus (Epist. Iren. ap. 
Euseb., v. 24). Both remained of the same opinion as before, 
but separated in perfect friendship. Among the Christians of 
Asia Minor themselves, there was a controversy in Laodicea re- 
specting the passover, about 170; but the proper point debated 
is not certainly known.*° 

Public sinners were excluded from the church, and the way 
for restoration could only be prepared by public repentance.*’ 


reference to Christ, the true passover, (1 Cor. v. 7, 8). Thus John, too, found it in Ephesus 
and allowed it to remain unaltered. He corrected it in his gospel only so far as it proceed- 
ed on the supposition that Christ had eaten with the Jews the passover on the day before 
his death, by making it apparent that Christ was crucified on the 14th Nisan. But that 
solemnity needed not to have been changed on this account; on the contrary, if the 14th 
Nisan was the true Christian passover day, the fulfillment of the typical pasch took place 
on the same day with it. 

36 Melito zepi rod Ildcya ap. Eusebius iv. 26,2: "Exi Lepovidiov IlavdAov, dvOurarov 
tie’ Aciac, @ Sdyapi¢ Katp@ tuapripycer, tyévero Gitnawc TOAAH év Aaodixeia wepi Tod 
maoxa, tunecévTog xata& Karpov év éxeivaic Taig juépaic’ * Kal éypagn tabta. Eusebius 
adds, that Clement of Alexandria was induced to write his book on the passover by this 
work of Melito. Since now Melito is quoted by Polycrates (Euseb. v. 24, 2) as an authority 
for the custom as observed in Asia Minor, but since the Paschal Chronicle, p. 6, s., quotes 
the writings of the contemporaneous A pollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, and Clement of Alex- 
andria, on the passover, together in favor of the view that Christ had not eaten the Jew- 
ish passover on the day before his death, it has been inferred that Apollinaris had attacked 
the Asiatic practice, and that Melito defended it. But no trace of this is found in Eusebius ; 
on the contrary, both writers are named by him beside one another as working together 


harmoniously, (iv. 26.) In the fragments of Apollinaris’s work which remain, those persons 


are combated who said: 71 tq 10’ 76 Tp6BaTov peta TOV pabynTdv Epayev 6 Kipioc, tH 


08 peyaAn nuépa TOv dGipwr airoc éxaGev, and appealed to Matthew in their favor. This 


view, says Apollinaris, contradicts the law (so far as the passover, and consequently also 
Christ as the passover, must be offered the 14th) and the gospels, and he asserts in opposi- 
toit: 710° Td dAnO.vov Tod Kupiov racya, 7 Ovoiag weyaAy, 6 dvti tod duvod Tait Geod, k 


tT. 2, Hence he doesmot combat the keeping of the 14th as the paschal day, but merely in- 


tends to vindicate the right significance of it against erroneous conceptions. This day was 
to be celebrated as the Christian passover, not because Christ had eaten on it the typical 
passover with the Jews, but because he himself, as the true passover, had offered him- 
self to God. % 
37 8ou0Adynoic. Iren.i.c. 9 of a female penitent: airy tov dravra ypévov iEouahay 
oupévn dteTéXece wevOotca Kal Opyvoica. Tertull. de Poenit. c. 9: Exomologesis —, qua 
delictum: Domino nostrum confitemur : non quidem ut ignaro, sed quatenus satisfactio con- 
fessione dis onitur, confessione poenitentia nascitur, poenitentia Deus mitigatur. Itaque 
exomologesis prosternendi et humilificandi hominis disciplina est, conversationem injan- 
gens misericordiae illicem. De ipso quogue habitu atque victa mandat, sacco et cineri - 
incubare, ‘corpus sordibus obscurare, animum moeroribus dejicere; illa, quae peccavit, 


168 FIRST PERIOD.,—DIYV. Il.—A.D. 117-193. 


After baptism only a public repentance was generally allowed.* 
In the African church they proceeded so far as frequently to ex- 
clude forever those who had been guilty of incontinence, mur- 
der, and idolatry. This was done in pursuance of Montanist 
principles.*° | 

Those persons were highly honored who endured persecutions 
for the sake of the Christian faith. The death, of @ martyr 
(udprvp, Acts xxii. 20; Heb. xii. 1; Apoc. xvii, 6) was sup- 
posed, like baptism, to have the efficacy of destroying sin (lava- 
erum sanguinis, To Bérrioya dia trupdc, Luke xii. 50; Mark x. 39), 
supplied the place even of baptism (according to Matthew x. 39), 
and alone introduced the person immediately to the presence 
of the Lord in paradise (Matt. v. 10-12; Apoc. vi. 9: hence 
huépa yevéOdAroc, yevéOALa TOY paptipwr, natales, natalitia marty- 
rum.*° But the surviving confessors also (éuoA0yqtat, confes- 
sores, Matt. x. 32; 1 Tim. vi. 12, 13) were held to be chosen 
members of Christ. People were zealous in visiting them in 


tristi tractatione mutare. Caeterum pastum et potum pura nosse; non ventris scilicet, 
sed animae causa. Plerumque vero jejuniis preces alere, ingemiscere, lachrymari, et 
mugire dies noctesque ad dominum Deum tuum, presbyteris advolvi, et caris Dei 
adgeniculari, omnibus fratribus legationes deprecationis suae injuangere—In quantum non 
peperceris tibi, in tantum tibi Deus, crede, parcet. 
38 Hermae Pastor ii. Mand. 4, § 1. Servis enim Dei poenitentia unaest. (Cf. Cotelerius 
adh.) Then he softens, §3, the principle afterward asserted by the Montanists, quod 
alia poenitentia non est nisi illa, cum in aquam descendimus, et accipimus, remissionem 
peccatorum, so far: quod post vocationem illam magnam et sanctam, si quis tentatus 
fuerit a Diabolo, et peccaverit, unam poenitentiam habet. So too Clemens Alex. Strom. ii. 
c, 13, p. 459, s. Cf. Bingham, lib. xviii. c. 4, vol. viii. p. 156, ss. 

39 Tertull. de Pudic. c. 12, appeals in favor of this to Acts xv. 29. Cyprian. Epist. 52: 
Apud antecessores nostros quidam de Episcopis istic in provincia nostra dandam pacem 
moechis non putaverunt, et in totum poenitentiae locum contra adulteria clauserunt. Non 
tamen a Coépiscoporum suorum collegio recesserunt, aut catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem vel 
duritiae vel censurae suae obstinatione ruperunt ; ut, quia apud alios adulteris pax dabatur, 
qui non dabat, de ecclesia separaretur. Manente concordiae vinculo et perseverante Cath- 
olicae Ecclesiae individuo sacramento, actum suum disponit et dirigit unusquisque Episco- 
pus, rationem propositi sui Domino redditurus.. Though this severity was afterward re- 
laxed in reference to the Moechi (see below, § 59, note 4), yet they ‘still remained at first 
united with the Montanists in asserting this principle, Tertull. de Pudic. c. 12: Quod neque 
idololatriae neque sanguini pax ab Ecclesiis redditur. 

40 Hermas (Pastor. iii. Simil. ix. 28) says tothe martyrs: Vitam vobis donat Dominus, 
nec intelligitis. Delicta enim vestra vos gravabant: et nisi passi essetis hujus nominis 
causa, propter peccata certe vestra mortui eratis Deo. Tertull.de Resurr. carnis, 43: Nemo 
enim peregrinatus a corpore statim immoratur penes Dominum, nisi ex martyrii praeroga- 
tiva scilicet paradiso, non inferis diversurus. (In like manner, according to the ancient 
Greeks, only heroes attained to the "HAvovor or the waxdpwr vio, of whose situation sim- 
ilar ideas were entertained as of Paradise, see Dissen de Fortunatorum insulis disp. Gotting. 

- 1837. On Paradise see Uhlemann in Iilgen’s Zeitschr, f. d. hist. Theol. i. i. 146.) Clemens 
Alex. Strom. iv, p. 596: Zovxev ody Td mapriplov aroKabapore elvat GuapTidv peta ddENe. 


CHAP. II.—CATHOLIC CHURCH. §53. ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. 169° 


the prisons, and taking care of them;*' and this was enjoined 
on the deacons as a peculiar duty.’ If the lapsed (lapsi) ** had 
been admitted by them to communion, there was a general 
aversion any longer to refuse them restoration ‘o the privileges 
of the church.** As it was an important point in the esti- 
mation of Christians generally to keep up the consciousness of 
enduring communion with their departed, this communion, ac- 
cordingly, with the blessed martyrs, was especially valuable 
and dear to them. In this sense, families celebrated the re- 
membrance of their departed members,** churches that of their 
‘martyrs yearly on the day of their death,*® by- prayers at the 


41 Tertull. ad Martyres, c. 1, init.: Inter carnis alimenta, benedicti martyres designati, 
quae vobis et domina mater ecclesia de uberibus suis, et singuli fratres de opibus suis pro- 
priis in carcerem subministrant, capite aliquid et a nobis, quod faciat ad spiritum quoque 
educandum. Carnem enim saginari et spiritum esurire non prodest.. The excess of care 
which he here only refers to (cf. Lucian. de morte Peregrini, c. 12), he afterward censured 
with bitterness in the Psychics, de Jejunio c. 12: Plane vestrum est in carceribus popinas 
exhibere martyribus incertis, ne consuetudinem quaerant, ne taedeat vitae, ne novi absti- 
nentiae disciplina scandalizenter. He even accuses themof endeavoring to put courage into 
the prisoners before their judges, condito mero tanquam antidoto. 

42 Cypriani Ep. 11: Semper sub antecessoribus nostris factum est, ut Diaconi ad car- 
cerem conimeantes Martyrum desideria consiliis suis et scripturarem praeceptis guberna- 
rent. So Perpetua relates in the Passio Perpetuae Felicitatis c. 3: Ibi tunc Tertius et 
Pomponius, benedicti Diaconi, qui nobis ministrabant, constituerunt praemio, ut paucis 
horis emissi in meliorem locum carceris refrigeraremus. 

43 Tn opposition to the stantes, as Romans xiv. 4, 1 Cor. x. 12. 

44 Epist. Eccl. Vienn. et Ludg. ap. Euseb.v. 2, § 3. Tertull. ad Mart. c. 1: Quam pa- 
cem quidam in ecclesia non habentes a martyribus in carcere exorare consueverunt. 
Idem de Pudicitia, c. 22: Ut quisque ex consensione vincula induit adhuc mollia, in novo 
custodiae nomine statim ambiunt moechi, statim adeunt fornicatores, jam preces circum- 
sonant, jam lacrymae circumstagnant maculati cujusque, nec ulli magis aditum carceris 
redimunt, quam qui Ecclesiam perdiderunt. 

48 Tertull. de Exhort. Cast. c. 11, to the man who bad married a second time: Neque 

enim pristinam poteris odisse, cui etiam religiosiorem reservas affectionem, ut jam recep- 
tae apud Deum, pro cujus spiritu postulas, pro qua oblationes annuas reddis. - Stabis ergo 
ad Deum cum tot uxoribus, quot in oratione commemoras, et offeres pro duabus, et com- 
mendabis-illas duas. De Monogamia c. 10: Enimvero et pro anima ejus (mariti mortui) 
orat (uxor), et refrigerium interim adpostulat ei, et in prima resurrectione consortium, et 
offert annuis diebus dormitionis ejus. 

46 Hpist. Eccl. Smyrn. de martyr. Polye. ap. Euseb. iv. 15, 15: Xpioriv pév yap vidov 
évra Tod Beod rpockvvoimev* Tove dé uaGpTupac Gc wabyTac Tod Kupiov Kai piyunTa¢ aya- 
mOpev akinc, Evexa ebvoiac avuTrepBAgrov Tipc cig tov tov Bacdéa Kal diddoKadov, dv 
yévoito Kal Rude ovyKoivwvote Te Kal cvupabytac yevécbat.—obtw¢ Te jueic tboTepov 
dvehépevor Ta Tiidtepa AiOwy ToAvTEAGv Kai donut epa brép ypvoiov boT& abrow 
(TloAvndprov), drebéueba 6rov Kal aKddovioy Fv. évOa Ge Svvatov piv cuvayopuévoic 
éy dyad dedoer Kai yapd, wapéset 6 Kbpiog éritEedeiv Tv Tod paprupiov aitod huépav yev- 
éOA10”, sig te TOv mponAAnKdTov uviunv, Kai TOV UEAA6vTOY GoKnoiv Te Kai éroLwactay. 
Tert. de Corona mil. 3: Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis annua die facimus, 
Cyprian. Bpist. 34: Sacrificia pro eis (martyribus semper, ut meministis, offerimus, quoties 
martyrom passiones et dies anniversaria commemoratione celebramus. Comp, Cyprian’s 


170 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 117-193. 


graves,‘’ and by agapae. So high an estimation of martyr- 
dom induced many Christians to give themselves up to the 
authorities, thus furnishing cause for the charge of fanatical 
enthusiasm brought against them by the heathen.** This mode 
of proceeding, however, was for the most part. discountenanced, 
in consequence of the express command of Christ (Matt. x. 23).* 


‘ 
instructions to his clergy how they should take care of the confessors. Epist..37: Officium 
meum vestra diligentia repraesentet, faciat omnia quae fieri oportet circa eos, quos in ta- 
libus meritis fidei.ac virtutis illustravit divina dignatio. Denique et dies eorum quibus ex- 
cedunt annotate, ut commemorationes eorum inter memorias Martyrum celebrare possimus 
—et celebrentur hic a nobis oblationes et sacrificia ob commemorationes eorum quae cito 
vobiscum Domino protegente celebrabimus. Further notices of the martyrs were the af- 
fairs of private individuals; and the representation of Anastasius (liber Pontificalis in vita 
Clementis) originated in the respect paid to saints in later times. Hic fecit vii. regiones 
dividi Notariis fidelibus Ecclesiae, qui gesta Martyrum sollicite et curiose, unusquisque 
per regionem suam, perquirerent (cf. vitae Anteri and Fabiani), which was afterward 
copied into martyrologies. How few genuine histories of the martyrs may be expected 
from this age is evident from Augustini sermo xciii. de diversis : Hoc primum primi Mar- 
tyris (Stephani) meritam commendatum est charitati vestrae: quia, cum aliorum Marty- 
rum vix gesta inveniamus, quae in solemnitatibus eorum recitare possimus, hujus passio 
in canonico libro est. Gregorius M. lib. viii. ep. 29, ad Eulogiam Episc. Alex.: Praeter 
illa quae in Eusebii libris de gestis SS. Martyrum continentur, nulla in archivo bujus nostrae 
Ecclesiae, vel in Romanae urbis bibliothecis esse cognovi, nisi pauca quaedam in unius 
codicis volumine collecta: Nos autem paene omnium martyrum, distinetis per dies singu- 
los passionibus, collecta in uno codice nomina habemus, atque quotidianis diebus in eorum 
veneratione missarum solemnia agimus. Non tamen in eodem volumine, quis qualiter sit 
passus indicatur, sed tantummodo nomen, locus, et dies passionis ponitar. The cause of 

- this may not indeed have been that assigned by Prudentius wep oredadvwr, i. v. 75: 

Chartulas blasphemus olim nam satelles abstulit, 

Ne tenacibus libellis erudita saecula 

Ordi it dumque passionis proditum,. - 

Dulcibus liaguis | per aures posterorum spargerent. 
Cf. Casp. Sagittarius de natalitiis martyrum in primitiva ecclesia. Jen. 1678, auctius ed. J. 
A. Schmid. 1696, 4. 

47 Hence the cry of the heathen: Areae non sint. s. Tertull. ad Scapul. c. 3. 

48 Tertull. ad Scapulam,c. 5. Arrius Antoninus (at the time of Hadrian) in Asia cum 
persequeretur instanter, omnes illius givitatis Christiani ante tribunalia ejus se manu facta 
obtulerunt, cum ille, paucis duci ju reliquis ait: @ deiAoi, ei OéAete aroOvicKerr, 
Kpnuvoic 7 Bpdxoug Eyere. In like manner, Justin makes the heathen say to the Christians, 
Apol. ii. 4: wdvtec obv Eavtove dwretoavtec ropetecbe Hn Tapa Tov Oedv, Kai juiv mpay- 
uata py mapéyete. Afterward the Montanists especially, see Tertull. 1. c. de fuga in per- 
sec. &c. Cf. 8. F. Rivini diss. de professoribus veteris Ecclesiae martyribus. . Lips. 
1739. 4, 

49 Epist. Eccl. Smyrn. c.4: Odx éraivodpev Tove mpootévtag éavtoic, éredy oby ob Tag 
éiddoxet Td evayyéduov. (Eusebius, an admirer ofsuch transactions, has omitted this sen- 
tence). Clemens Alex. Strom. iv. p. 597, vii. p. 871, ed. Potter. 





INTRODUCTION. § 54. CONDITION OF HEATHENISM. 173 


THIRD DIVISION. 


FROM SEPTIMUS SEVERUS TO THE SOLE DOMINION OF CONSTANTINE,. 
A.D. 193-324. 


INTRODUCTION. 


§ 54. 
CONDITION OF HEATHENISM. 


While the Roman empire appeared hastening to its fall, the 
throne being occupied by soldiers, the provinces devastated by 
barbarians, and the government changed into the most arbitrary 
despotism, the kingdom of superstition, in which alone the men 


of that time sought for peace and security from the dangers that 


surrounded them, had established itself firmly. Not only were 
the emperors themselves addicted to this superstition, but they 
also openly confessed it, and in part introduced even foreign rites 
into Rome.’ The Platonic philosophy, which had confined it- 
self till now to a defense of the popular religions, and to se- 
euring for, the wise a more elevated worship of deity, endeav- 
ored, since the’beginning of the third century, to give to the 
people’s religion a higher and more spiritual form, under the 
pretense of bringing it back to its original, purer state. This 
philosophy had been unquestionably forced to this by the spirit- 
tah preponderance of Christianity. With this view, Philostratus 


i 


: 
1 P. &. Miller de hierarchia et studio vitae asceticae in sacris et mysteriis Graec et 


‘Rom. latentibus, Hafn. 1803. Abschn. 3 (translated in the N. Bibl: d. schon. Wissensch. Bad. 


70. S. 3, ff) The Jewish religion also was continually incorporated into this religious mix- 
ture (comp. above, § 17, note 9), see Commodiani (about 270) instractiones adv. gentium 
deos pro christiana aaplins (in Gallandii Biblioth. vett. Patr. T. iii.) : 


ni Inter utrumque putans dubie vivendo cavere, 
zs Nudatus'a lege decrepitus luxu procedis ? 
+ Quid in synagoga decurris ad Pharisaeos, 
Ut tibi misericors fiat, quem denegas ultra? 
re Exis.inde foris, iterum-tu fana requiris. 


172 - FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. III.—A.D. 193-324. 


the elder composed the life of Apollonius of Tyana (220), in 
which the latter was represented as the reformer of heathenism.’? 
But. all the preceding tendencies of philosophy, and this also, 
were perfected in the so-called mew-platonic school.* The 
founder of it, Ammonius Saccas, Saxxdc (t. €., caxxoddpoc) of. oth 
Alexandria ({ about 243), an apostate from Christianity to 
heathenism,* appears to have borrowed the pattern of his heath- 
enism defending philosophy principally from the Christian Gnos- 
tics. He communicated his system only as a secret; but by 
his disciple, the Egyptian Plotinus ({ 270), it was farther de- 
veloped, and spread abroad with incredible rapidity. With no 
less renown, Plotinus was followed by his disciple, Porphyry of 
Tyre (Malchus + 304), and he by pominichus of Chalcis (} 333), 
who survived the overthrow of paganism.° ‘ 

The leading principles of the theology of these philosoplisis: 
who wished to find the absolute, not by a process of, thought, 
but by immediate intuition, like the Christian Gnostics, are the 
following: From the highest existence (70 év) arises intelligence 
{6 vot¢), and from this the soul (7 yvxq). The highest world 
of intelligence or understanding (xéoy0¢ vonréc), is the totality 
of all intelligences, of the gods as well as of human spirits. By 
the soul of the world (hence called the dyovpyéc), the visible 
world was formed. The gods are divided into those dwelling 
above the world (dior, vonroi, dpaveic), and those inhabiting the 
world (zeptxdoptot, aicOnroi, éupaveic). ‘T'o the latter the different 
parts of the world are intrusted for oversight (hence 6eoi pepexoi, 
pEptorot, €Ovapyat, ToALodyor) ; and from them the various nations 


2 Comp. § 14, note 10, and Baur’s treatise there quoted. Tzschirner'’s Fall. d. Heiden 
thums, i. 405, 461. 

3 Concerning this comp. Tiedemann’s Geist der specul. Philosoph. iii. 262. Tenne- 
mann’s Gesch. d. Philos. vi. Ritter’s Gesch. d. Philos. iv. 535. C. Meimer’s Beitrag zur 
Gesch. d. Denkart d. ersten Jahrh. n. Chr. G. Leipzig 1782. 8, S. 47, ff Imm. Fichte de 
philosophiae novae Platonicae origine. Berol. 1818. F. Bouterwek Philosophorum Alex- 

_ andrinorum ac Neo-Platonicorum recensio accuratior in the Commentatt. Soc. Reg. Scient. 
Gotting. recentiores, vol. v. (1823) p. 227, ss. Tzschirner’s Fall. d, Heidenth. i. 8. 404, ff. 
K. Vogt’s Neoplatonismus u. Christenthum. Th. i. Neoplatonische Lehre. Berlin. 1836. 8. 

* Porphyrius contra Christianos ap. Euseb. vi. 19: ’Auudéviog wév yap Xpieriavoc év 
Xpioriavoic Gvatpaget¢ Toicg yovetatyv, bre Tov dpoveiv Kai THC GtAoGOdiac FpbaTO, ei bic 
Tpo¢ THY kata vo“oug TOAITEiaY pete BGero. On the other hand, Eusebius: 76 ’Auuwvio 
ta tie évOéov gikocogiacg GKépata Kal ddidxtwTa Kai péxpic Eoxatne Tod Biov dtéueve. 
teAevtijc. Here Eusebius evidently refers to another Ammonius, pee to the author . 
of the Gospel Harmony. j 

5 Vita Plotini by Porphyrius in Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. iv. Eunapii (about BS vitae So 
phistarum, rec. et illustr. J. F. Boissonade. Amst. 1822. &. 

— 
& 


2 


INTRODUCTION. § 54. CONDITION OF HEATHENISM. - 173 


have derived their peculiar character. Lower than the gods 
stand the demons, some good, and others bad. While the peo- 
ple worship the highest god only in their national deities, and 
that with propriety, the wise man must, on the contrary, en- 
deayor to attain to immediate union with the highest deity. 
While Neo-platonism endeavored in this way both to prop up 
heathenism, and to give it a higher and more spiritual charac- — 
ter, it adapted itself, on the one hand, to the grossest popular 
superstitions, and, on the other, adopted the purest ideas re- 
specting the supreme deity. Accordingly, it communicated, at 
the same time, the most excellent precepts regarding the moral 
worship of God, and recommended asceticism and theurgy,® in 
order to elevate its votaries to communion with the deity, and 
to obtain dominion over the demons. It can not well be doubt- 
ed, that Christianity influenced the development of the purer 
aspect of the neo-platonic doctrines, when we look at the striking 
agreement of many of these doctrines with those of Christianity.’ 
This source, however, was not acknowledged by the new Plato- 
nists, who wished that the root of their doctrine should be con- 
sidered as existing only in the national philosophy, and, along 
with it, in the oldest Chaldean and Egyptian wisdom. In con- 
sequence of this view, neo-platonic productions appeared some- 
times in the form of Chaldean oracles,* and in the name of 
Hermes Trismegistus.° 


6 Lobeck Aglaophamus, i. p. 104, ss. 

7 Mosheim, Diss. de studio ethnicorum Christianos imitandi, in his Diss. ad hist. eccl. 
pertinentes; i. 351. Ullmann tber den Einfluss des Christenth. auf Porphyrius, in the 
theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1832, ii. 376. 

8 Respecting the XadAdaixd Adyia among the New Platonists, see J. C. Thilo, Comm. de 
coelo empyreo, pp. iii. Halae. 1889, 40. 4. 

§ Hermes Trismegistus was the concentration of the old Egyptian wisdom, in whose . 
name works of very different kinds were composed. The philosophic portion of them belongs 
to the New Platonism: Asclepius and Poemander are the most important (Opp. gr. lat. ed. 
Adr. Turnebus. Paris. 1554. 4. Colon. 1630. fol. Hermes Trismegists Poemander, von D. 
tina. Berlin. 1781). Even in them we find many ideas borrowed from Christianity, 
so that they are erroneously, in part, attributed to Christian authors. Comp. Casauboni 
exercitatt. ad Baronium, p. 69. Chr. Meiner’s Religionsgeschich. d. aeltesten Voelker, bes 
d. Aossoie Gottingen. 1775. S. 202. Tennemann’s Gesch. d. Philos. vi. 464. Baumgar- 
ten-Crusius de libroram Hermeticorum origine atque indole (a Jena Easter-programm), 
1827. 4to, 


. a 


174 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 193-324, 


FIRST CHAPTER. a 


EXTERNAL FORTUNES OF CHRISTIANITY, a. 


§ 55. 
DISPOSITION OF THE HEATHEN TOWARD IT. 


Though the reports of secret abominations said to be practiced 
by the Christians in their assemblies vanished by degrees among 
the heathen people, yet other prejudices against them remained 
unchanged. Every public calamity was continually regarded 
token of the wrath of the gods against the Christians, and e 
fresh hatred and persecution.? The cultivated heathen held fast 
by the old view, that whatever truth they could not avoid perceiy- 
ing in the Christian religion, was disfigured by a barbarous form, 
and the admixture of rude enthusiasm, and was found in a purer 
form in their national traditions. From this point of view be- 
gan, from the commencement of the third century, the. efforts 
which were made to reform the popular religion, that it might be 





elevated to the same height as Christianity. In this way either . 


both religions might be blended together, or greater power would 
be given to heathenism to withstand Christianity. _Philostratus, 
in his life of Apollonius of 'T'yana, might have had in view this 
syncretistic object,’ but Neo-platonism, on the contrary, appeared 
in an attitude decidedly hostile to Christianity.*’ The new Plato- 


1 Origenes c. Cels. vi. p. 294: “Hric dvognuia rapaddyw¢g mada pév TAeiotwv bcav 
éxpdret—xai viv 68 étt Gxat@ tivag. Eusebius, iv. 7, 5: Obx elg paxpdv ye ujv abto 
(Saiuove) TadTa mpobyaper. 

2 Comp. above, § 41, note 26.. The constant reproach of the heathen may be found in 
Cyprianus lib. ad Demetrianum: Dixisti, per nos fieri, et quod nobis debeant imputari 
omnia ista, quibus nunc mundus quatitur et urgetur, quod dii vestri a nobis non colantur. 
Origenes i in Matth. commentariorum series, c. 39 (on Matth. xxiv. 9), Arnobius adv. gentes 
i. c, 1: Postquam esse in mundo christiana gens coepit, terrarum orbem periisse, multi- 
formibus malis affectum esse genus humanum : ipsos etiam Coelites derelictis curis solen- 
nibus, quibus quondam solebant invisere res nostras, terrarum ab regionibus extermina- 
tos, c. 3, iii. 36, iv. 47... Cf. Maximini Epist. ap. Euseb. ix. 7, 4. 

3-Comp. § 14, note 10. Baur’s Apollonius u. Christus, in the Tubingen Zeitschr. f. 

. Theol. 1832, iv. 123, ff. 

* Mosheim de turbata per recentiores Platonicos ecclesia, in his Dissert. ad hist. eccl. 
pert. i. 120,173. Keil de Causis alieni Platonic. recent. a rel. Christ. animi Opusc. acad. ii. 
393, ss.). . Tzschirner’s Fall d. Heidenth. i. 560. 





; 
3 
. 





CHAP. L—EXTERNAL FORTUNES. §55. THE HEATHEN. 175 


nists, for the most part, regarded Christ as the most distin- 
guished sage and theurgist. On the other hand, however, they 
asserted that the doctrine of Christ perfectly agreed with theirs 
at first, but that it had been in many ways corrupted by his 


: disciples, especially by the doctrine of Christ’s deity, and forbid- 


ding the worship of the gods.> In this manner the Christians 
appeared to be a crowd of misguided enthusiasts who had strayed 
from their leader, in contrast with whom, the heathen in their 
philosophy, and in their purified popular worship, possessed the 
purer truth, and occupied a higher position. The. contest of 
these philosophers with Christianity, which continued till the 
sixth century, had thus a more. earnest character than the ear- 
lier attacks. In the works of Plotinus many passages are 


aimed’ at the’Christians, without their name being introduced.® 


~s Se * 

PPoiphytius wept THe x Aoylwy grdocogiac (a book which Ficinus had read even in 
the fifteenth century. See his Comment. in Plotini Ennead. ii. lib. iii. c. 7, p. 121, and 
frequently, and which 1s probably still preserved in some Florentine library) apud Au- 
gustin. de civ. Dei, xix. 23: Praeter opinionem profecto quibusdam videatur esse quod 
dictari sumus.. Christum enim Dii piissimum pronunciaverunt et immortalem factum, et 

cum bona praedicatione ejus meminerunt (namely by oracles). Christianos autem pollutos 
et contaminatos et errore implicatos esse dicunt, et multis talibus adversus eos blasphemiis 


-utuntur.—De Christo autem interrogantibus si est Deus, ait Hecate: “ Quoniam quidem 


immortalis anima post corpus ut incedit, nosti: a sapientia autem abscissa semper errat: 
viri pietate praestantissimi est illa anima, hanc colunt aliena a se veritate.” The same in 
Euseb. Demonstr. evang. iii. c. 8 :— : 


"Orre pév Gbavarn woy7 weTa oGua TpoBaiver, 

Tiyvaoxet oogin retiunuévoc. dAAdyewuyy 

’Avépoc evoeBin mpogepsotaty éotiv éxeivov. 
Sunt spiritus terreni minimi loco terreno quodam maloram Daemonum potestati subjecti 
Ab his sapientes Hebraeorum, quorum unus iste etiam Jesus fait, sicut audisti divina A pol- 
linis oracula, quae superius dicta sunt: ab his ergo Hebraei Daemonibus pessimis et mi- 
noribus spiritibus vetabant religiosos, et ipsis vacare prohibebant: venerari autem magis 
coelestes Deos, amplius autem venerari Deum patrem., Hoc autem et Dii praecipiunt, et in 
superioribus ostendimus, qdemadmodum animadvertere ad Deum monent, et illum colere 
ubique imperant. Verum indocti et impiae naturae, quibus vere fatum non concessit a Diis 
dona obtinere, neque habere Jovis immortalis notionem, non audiéntes et Deos et divinos 


‘Viros Deos quidem omnes recusaverunt, prohibitos autem Daemones non solum nullis odiis in- 


seque, sed etiam revereri delegerunt. Aug. de Cons. Ev. lib. i.c. 7, § 11. Honorandum enim 


 tamquam sapientissimum virum putant, colendum autem tamquam Deum negant. Ibid.c, 
9, § 14: Ita vero isti desipiunt, ut illis libris, quos-eum (Christum) scripsisse existimant, 
dicant contineri eas artes, quibus eum putant illa fecisse miracula, quorum fama ubique pre- 


erebuit: quod existimando se ipsis produnt, quid diligant, et quid affectent. Ibid. c. 15: 
Vani Christi landatores et christianae religionis obliqui obtrectatores—continent blasphe- 
mias a Christo, et eas in discipulos ejus effandunt. Ibid. c.34: Ita enim yolunt et ipsum 
credi, nescio quid aliud scripsisse, quod diligunt, nihilque sensisse, contra Deos suos, sed 
eos potius magico ritu coluisse, et discipulos ejus non solum de illo fuisse mentitos, dicendo | 
illum Deum, per quem facta sint omnia, cum aliud nihil quam homo fuerit, quamvis excel- 
lentissimae Sapentiae: verum etiam de Diis eorum non hoc docuisse, quod ab illo didicissent. 
* Vogt's Neoplatoninmas u. Christenthum, 8. 137, ff. ¥ 


= 


~ - 


- ce 


- 


176 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV, Il.—AD. 193-324. ” 


Direct attacks against them were the kata saab fif- 
teen books of Porphyry ;7 and the Aéyor diradjberg mpd¢g Xproria- 
vovc,,in two books of Hierocles, governor of Bithynia under 
Diocletian.* The lives also of Pythagoras by Jamblichus and 
Porphyry had a hostile reference to Christianity.* 


§ 56. 


ROSRUST OF THE EMPERORS TOWARD THE CHRISTIANS. 


After Christianity had been favorably regarded by several 
emperors in the first half of this period, and had been introduced 
into the general religious syncretism, there arose in the second 
half, not only new persecutions, but such as partook of a far 
more hazardous character than any of the earlier, since they . 
were generally commanded by the emperors, and aimed at noth- 
ing less than the complete annihilation of Christianity.  Septz- 
mus Severus (193 till 211) was, indeed, not unfriendly to the 
Christians at first (Tertull. ad Scapulam, c. 4); but. they had 
much to suffer in the PIO VINES from the popular rage’ and the 
avarice of the governors.? These persecutions increased consid- 
erably after the emperor (203), changed, perhaps, by the ex- 
cesses of the Montanists, had forbidden the adoption of Christ- 


7 Whether he was an apostate from Christianity, as Socrates, iii. 23, Augustin. de civit. 
Dei, x. 28, say, is questionable. See the correspondence between Siberus and Thomas in 
Miscellan. Lips. tom. i. p. 331, ss. Ullmann in the theol. Stad. u. Krit. 1832, ii, 380.— 
Fragments of his writings have been collected: by Luc. Holstenius Diss. de vita et scriptis 
Porphyrii. Rom. 1630. 8 (reprinted.in Fabrici Bibl. Gr. t. iv. p. 207, ss.)... The works writ- 
ten against him by Methodius, bishop of Tyre, Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, and (the best) 
by Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, have also been lost. 

8 Cf. Lactant. Institutt. div: v.c. 2 and 3. Agaist his comparison of Christ with Apol 
lonius of Tyana see Eusebius contra Hierocl. lib. appended to his Demonstratio Evangelica 
ed. Paris 1628, and Colon. 1688. Baur’s Apollonius von Tyana und Christus, S.1. Even 
in Chrysostom’s time, the writings of the heathen philosophers against Christianity were 
for the most part lost (Chrys. de S. Babyl. Opp. ed. Montf. ii. 539). According to’a law of 
Valentinian IIT. and Theodosius II., A.D. 449, they were enjoined to be burnt (Cod. Jus- 
tin. i. 1, 3), 

9 Jamblichus de vita Pythagorae gr. et lat. ed. Theoph. Kiessling. Acc. Porphyrius de 
vita Pyth. 2 Partes. Lips. 1815, 16. 8. Comp. Mosheim, Dissertt. ad hist. eccl. pert. i. 151 
Tzschirner’s Fall d. Heidenth. i. 465. Baur’s Apollonius, S. 208. 

Tertullian. de Fuga in persecut.c. 12: Persecutionem—non esse—redemptio nummaria 
fuga est. 

1 Tertullian. de Fuga in persecut. c. 12: Persecutionem—non esse—redimendam—re- 

demptio nummaria fuga est. 

? Tertull. Apologet. (written 198), c. 4, 12, 30,37, 49. Cf. Mosheim de aetate apologet. 

Tertull. et initio persecut. Christ. sub Severo (Dissertt. ad hist. eccl. pert. vol. i. p.1, ss.). 


— 


CHAP. I—EXTERNAL FORTUNES. § 56. THE EMPERORS. 177 


ianity.? Under Caracalla, however (211-217), they gradually 
ceased.* Hlagabalus (218-222) went so far as to think of 
blending the Christian religion with the worship of his god.° 
Severus Alexander (222-235), and his mother, Julia Mam- 
maea, were addicted to a similar but more rational syncretism, 
and gave the Christians many proofs of their good-will. But 
Mazximin the Thracian (235-238), persecuted the Christian 
clergy, and overlooked the persecutions in which the people of 
some provinces, excited against the Christians by an earthquake, 


3 Cf. Tertull. de Corona militis—Spartian. in Severo c. 17: In itinere Palaestinis pluri 
ma jura fundavit. Judaeos fieri sub gravi poena vetuit. Idem etiam de Christianis sanxit. 
Ulpiamus in lib. sing. de officio Praefecti Urbi (Dig. lib. i. tit. 12, § 14): Divus Severus re- 
scripsit, eos etiam, qui illicitum collegium coisse dicuntur, apud Praefectum Urbis accusan- 
dos. Euseb. vi.7: (‘lotdac ovyypagéwv Erepoc) THv Opvarovuévyv tod avtiypiorov rap- 
ovotayv 70n TOTe TAnoLaleLv WET’ odTw odadedc H ToD Kal’ Hudv TOTe Stwypod Kivyotc, 


‘Tig Tév TOAAGY avetdpatte Stavoiac. Martyrs in Alexandria: Leonides (Euseb. vi. 1), 


Potamiaena (Ibid. ¢. 5), in Africa: Martyres Scillitani, Perpetua et Felicitas (Acta apud 
Ruinart and in Minter primord. Eccl. Afr. p. 219, ss. On Severus generally see Minter, 
1. ce. p. 172, gs.). , 

4 Not in Africa at first, Tertull. ad Scapulam liber.—In this book, c. 4, Caracalla is said 
to be lacte christiano educatus.—Under this emperor, as appears from Dig. lib. i. tit. 16, 1. 
4, Domitius Ulpianus wrote his Libb. x. de officio Proconsulis. Cf. Lactant. Institutt. v 
c. 11: Domitius de officio Proconsulis libro septimo rescripta principum nefaria collegit, ut 
doceret, quibus poenis affici oporteret eos, qui se cultores Dei confiterentur. 

5 Lampridius in Heliogabal. c. 3: Heliogabalum in Palatino monte juxta aedes impera- 
torias consecravit, eique templum fecit, studens et Matris typum et Vestae ignem et Pal- 
ladium et ancilia et omnia Romanis veneranda in illad transferre templum, et id agens, ne 
quis Romae Deus, nisi Heliogabalus coleretur. Dicebat praeterea, Judaeorum et Samari- 
tanorum religiones, et christianam devotionem illuc transferendam, ut omnium culturarum 
secretum Heliogabali sacerdotium teneret. Baur’s Apollonius v. Tyana u. Christus, in 
the Tiibingen Zeitschrift f. Theol. 1832, iv. 127. 

6 Origen was called by Julia Mammaea to Antioch, Euseb. vi. 21. On this account, 
later writers (first Orosius, vii. 18) make her a Christian.—Lampridius in Sev. Alex. c. 22: 
Judaeis privilegia reservavit, Christianos esse passus est. C. 28: Quodam tempore festo 
ut solent, Antiochenses, Aegyptii, Alexandrini lacessiverant eum conviciolis, Syram Archi- 
synagogum eum vocantes, et Archierea. -C. 29: Matutinis horis in larario suo, in’ quo et 
divos Principes, sed optimos electos, et animas sanctiores, in queis et Apollonium, et, 


“quantum scriptor suorum temporum dicit, Christum, Abraham et Orpheum, et hu- 
jusmodi caeteros habebat, ac majorum effigies, rem divinam faciebat. C. 43: Christo 


templum facere voluit, eumque inter Deos recipere, quod et Hadrianus cogitasse fertur :— 
sed prohibitus est ab iis, qui consulentes sacra repererant omnes Christianos futuros, 
si id optato evenisset, et templa reliqua deserenda. (On the religious syncretism of 
the emperor see two dissertations in Heyne Opusc. acad. vol. vi. p. 169.) C. 45: Ubi 
aliquos voluisset vel rectores provinciis dare, vel praepositos facere, vel procuratores, 
d est rationales ordinare, nomina eorum proponebat, hortans populum, ut si quis quid 
naberet erminis, probaret manifestus rebus; si non probasset, subiret poenam capitis: 


_ dicebatque grave esse, cum id Christiani et Judaei facerent in praedicandis sacerdoti- 


bus, qui ordinandi sunt, non fieri in provinciarum rectoribus, quibus, et fortunae hominum 
committerentur et capita. C. 49: Cum Christiani quendam locum qui publicus fuerat, oc 

cupassent, contra popinarii decerent, sibi eum deberi, rescripsit, melius esse, ut quomodo 
cunque illic Deus colatur, quam popinariis dedatuar. 


VOL. teed 2, 


L78 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IIL—A.D. 193-324. 


indulged.’ After the reign of Gordian (238-244), an | Ph lip 
the Arabian (244—249),° during which they were unmolested, 
Decius (249-251), immediately after he had ascended the 
throne, gave the signal by an edict for a fearful (the first really 
general) persecution,® in which many Christians suffered mar- 
tyrdom,'® while many others, enervated by long quietude, aposta- 
tized (sacrificati, thurificatt, libellatict).“ Gallus also (251- 
253), after a short interruption, continued this persecution.” 





7 Eusebius, vi. 28, Firmilianus ad Cyprian. (in Epp. Cypr.75) Origenes Commentar. in 
Matth. xxiv. 9 (tom. 28). 

8 Euseb. Hist. ecel. vi.34: Todroy xaréyer Adyor Xprorcavoy 6 évta év juépa Tie bora- 
tng Tov Iaoxya ravvvyidog tév éxi tig éxxAnoiac ebydv TO KAGOEL ovupetacyeiv eOe- 
Aqjoat* ov xpétepov d2 xd Tod TyviKdde TpoEcTOTog (according to Leontius, bishop of 
Antioch, about 350, in the Chronic. Pasch. ad Olymp. 257, it was Babylas, bishop of 
Antioch) éxitpanivat eicBareiv, h éSouodoynoactat, kai toig év napantépacw éetato- 
uévotc, ustavoiag Te XOpav toxovorr, éavTov xatadéfar'—xai weiOapyjoal ye xpobipwe 
Aéyerat. Hieron. in Chron. ad ann. 246. Philippus primus omnium ex Romanis impera- 
toribus Christianus fait. First contradicted by Jos. Scaliger ad Euseb. Chron. and Is. 
Casaubonus ad Jul. Capitolin. p. 201, especially Frid. Spanheim de Christianismo Phil: Ar. 
(Opp. t. ii. p. 400, ss.). It looks like a disposition of this emperor toward the Christians, 
that Origen wrote letters both to him and his spouse. Severus, Eusebius, vi. 36. 

® Of the earlier persecutions, it is said by Origenes, contra Celsum iii. p. 116: ’OAéyos 
Kata Katpov¢ Kal coddpa ebvapibunror mepi Tig XprotiavGv OeoceBeiac reOvpKact. 

10 Gregor. Nyssenus in vita Gregor. Thaumaturgi (Opp. t. iii. p. 567): Téumer mpd¢ rove 
tév é0vav kabnyoupévove mpbctaypya, goBepdv Kar abtév THy dmeiAqy Tig Tiuwplac 
dpifar, el pH mavtototg aixtopoig tov¢g TO Gvoua To’ Xpictod mpockvvodvrae diarwGi- 
caivTo, kal nmpooaydyoev médw aibtovc g6By Te Kal TH TOV alkiouav dvdyKy TH 
matpog Tov daiyévwv Aatpeig. Descriptions by contemporaries Dionys. Alex. (apud 
Euseb. vi. 40-42) and Cyprian in his letters and de Lapsis lib—Martyrs: Fabian; bishop 
of Rome, Babylas of Antioch, Alexander of Jerusalem, Pionius, presbyter at Smyrna 
(Cyprian. Epist. 52: Tyrannus infestus sacerdotibus Dei). 

11 Cypriani lib. de Lapsis: Ad prima statim verba minantis inimici maximus fratrum 
numerus fidem suam prodidit, nec prostratus est persecutionis impetu, sed voluntario 
lapsu se ipse prostravit—Non exspectaverunt saltem, ut interrogati negarent, ut accen- 
derent, apprehensi. Ante aciem multi victi, sine congressione prostrati, nec hoc sibi reli- 
querunt, ut sacrificare idolis viderentur inviti. A later pretext of the libellatici see 
Cypriani Epist. 52: Ego prius legeram et Episcopo tractante cognoveram, non sacrifi- 
candum idolis :—et idcireo ne hoc facerem, quod non licebat, cum occasio libelli fuisset, 
oblata, quem nec ipsum acciperem, nisi ostensa fuisset occasio, ad magistratum vel veni, 
vel alio eunte mandavi, Christianum me esse, sacrificare mihi non licere, ad aras diaboli 
me venire non posse; dare me ob hoc praemium, ne quod non licet faciam. Different 
kinds of them, Cypr. Ep. 31: Sententiam nostram—protulimus adversus eos, qui se ipsos 
infideles illicita nefarioram libelloram professione prodiderant,—quo non minus, quam si 
ad nafarias aras accessissent, hoc ipso quod ipsum contestati fuerant tenerentur; sed 
etiam adversus illos qui acta fecissent, licet praesentes, cum fierent, non affuissent, cum 
praesentiam suam utique, ut-sic scriberentur mandando, fecissent. Id. lib. de Lapsis: Nec 
sibi quominus agant poenitentiam blandiantar, qui etsi nefandis sacrificiis manus non con- 
taminaverunt, libellis tamen conscientiam polluerunt. Et illa professio denegantis con- 
testatio et Christiani: [est Christiani], quod fuerat abnuentis. Fecisse se dixit quidquid 
alius faciendo commisit. Cf. Mosheim de reb. Chr. ante Const. M. p. 483. 

12 Dionys. Alex. ap. Euseb. vii. 1—Cypriani Epist. 57, 58, et lib. ad Demetrianum 





wf CHAP. 1—OXTHRNAL FORTUNES. § 56. THE EMPERORS. 179 
Valerian (253-260), gave the Christians rest for some time, 
but was ‘induced by his favorite Macrianus (257) ‘to renew 
the persecution."* . Gallienus (260-268), first put a stop to 
it;* and in the stormy times that now succeeded, the em- 
perors had too much to do with antagonist emperors, rebellions, 
and barbarians, to think of persecuting the Christians. Only 
Aurelian (270-275) issued an edict against them, the execu- 


tion of which was prevented by his murder that immediately 
followed. When the empire of Diocletian had received (284— 


305) four rulers (285, Maximian, Augustus of the west ;—292, 
the Caesars, Galerius and Constantius Chlorus), the church 
was at first undisturbed, notwithstanding the enmity of Ga- 
lerius. 'The Christians attained to the most important offices, 
and the church was raised to a condition externally prosper- 
ous (Luseb. viii. 1). The alleged persecution of Maximian in 
Gaul and Rome is very improbable. But in February 303, 


3 Dionys. Alex. ap. Euseb. vii. 10, 11—Cypriani Epist. 82, according to the report of 
his messengers sent to Rome: Quae sunt in vero ita se habent. Reseripsisse Valerianum 
ad Senatum, ut Episcopi et Presbyteri et Diacones in continenti animadvertantur, Sena- 
tores vero et egregii viri et equites Romani, dignitate amissa, etiam bonis spolientur, et si 
ademptis facultatibus Christiani esse _perseveraverint, capite quoque multentur; matronae 
vero ademptis bonis in exsilium yelTegentur, Caesariani autem, quicunque vel prius confessi 
fuerant, vel nunc. confessi fuerint, confiscentur, et vincti in Caesarianas possessiones de- 
scripti mittantur. Martyrs: Cyprian (Vita et Passio Cypr. scripta per Pontium diaconum 
ejus, and Acta proconsularia ejusd. apud Ruinart), Sixtus II. bishop of Rome, and Lauren. 
tius his deacon (Prudentius zepi oreddvwy Hymn 2). 

14 The first laws of toleration. Two rescripts addressed on this subject to Christian 
bishops are quoted by Eusebius, vii. 13. The first is that by which Gallienus, after he had 
eonquered Egypt (261), makes known to the bishops in that country the toleration which 
had been already announced to the rest of the empire: T7v evepyeciav tij¢ tuje dwpedec 
6:2 mavtog Tod Kéquov éxBiBacbjvar xpecérasa. Smw¢ Grd TOV Térwy Tv Cpyoker- 
cipwv droxwphowct. Kat 01d TodTo Kal bueic THE avTtypadye Tic éuRe TO TéTw ypRoOat 
Stvacbe, Gore undéva tyuiv évoydeiv. The other he issued 7a tév Kkadovuévav Kowuntn- 
piov GxohauGdvew éxizpémar yupla- : 

15 Legio Thebaea, leg. felix Agaunensis, Thebaei with their leader (primicerius) Mau- 
ricius (2867) massacred in Acaunensibus angustiis (Agaunum, St. Maurice in Wallis). 
Eusebius, Lactantius, Prudentius, Sulpicius Severus, are silent on the subject. The first 
mention of it is about 520, in vita S. Romani (Acta SS. Februar. t. iii. p. 740). Then by 
Avitus, archbishop of Vienne (t 523), dicta in Basilica SS. Agaunensium in innovatione 
monasterii ipsius vel passione martyrum. By Eucherius, bishop of Lyons (about 530), 
Passio SS. Mauricii ac sociorum ejus (apud Ruinart). These Latin acta appear to have 
been transferred, with arbitrary alterations, by Simeon Metaphrasta (Acta SS. Februar. t. 
iii. p. 237) to a Greek martyr, Mauricius (Theodoret Graec. affect. curat. disput. viii. in 
fine), who, as tribunus milit. is said to have been executed along with seventy soldiers in 
Apamea, in Syria, by the command of Maximianus. Against this narrative: Jean Dubor- 
dieu Diss. hist. et crit. sur le martyre de la Légion Thébéene. Amst. 1705. 12. For it: Jos. 
de L’Isle Défense de la vérité de la Légion Thébéene. Nancy. 1737. 12.° Later additions 
respecting Thebans, who are said to have suffered in other places, ex. gr. Gregor. Turon. 


- 


180 FIRST. PERIOD.—DIV. III.—A.D. 193-324, 


a+ 


Diocletian, moved by superstition’® and the persuasions of G'a- 
lerius and Hierocles, caused the splendid church in Nicomedia 
to be destroyed, and then issued in succession three edicts 
against the Christians,'7 which were finally succeeded by .a 
fourth in 304, by virtue of which all Christians without ex- 
ception were compelled to worship the gods.’* Thus there arose 
in the entire Roman empire, with the exception of Gaul, where 
Constantius Chlorus was even now well-disposed toward the 
Christians," the-most violent persecution against. them, abun- 
dant both in martyrs and in apostates (a new elass called tradi- 
tores). After the two Augusti had laid down their dignity 
(305), the persecution continued to rage in the east under the 
new Augustus, Galerius and his Caesar, Mazimin.** In Gaul 


de gloria martyr. i. 62. Est apnud Agrippinensem urbem basilica, in qua dicanter L. vir7 
ex illa legione sacra Thebaeorum pro Christi nomine martyrium consummasse. Ado (about 
860) has, on the other hand, even: Gereon et alii eccxvili. Pavia has had the whole scene . 
transferred to its neighborhood in later times (Act. SS. September, t. vi. p. 377, 908, ss.)- 
Perhaps the misunderstood expression, milites Christi, gave rise to most of these legends. 

46 Constantine, ap. Euseb. de Vita Constant. ii. 50, 51, speaks of this from report. 

17 Concerning all these persecutions comp. the contemporaries, Lactantius de Mortibus 
persecutorum, c. 7, ss., and Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. libb. viit—x. First edict, Euseb. viii. 2: 
Tac pév éxxdAnoiac cic Edadoe dépery, Tag O® ypadac adavetc mupi yevéobar: Kai Tobe Mev 
Tyne éretAnupévore, atipove* Tove dé év oixeriacc, el Exipévorev ev TH TOD Xprotiavic- 
pod mpobécet, éXevbepiac orspeicfar. (Rufin. Ne, se quis servorum permansisset Chris- 
tianus, libertatem consequi posset.) Lactant. de Mort. persec. c.13. Postridie propositum 
est edictum, quo cavebatur, ut religionis illius homines carerent omni honore ac dignitate, 
tormentis subjecti essent, ex quocunque ordine ac gradu venirent, adversus eos omnis 
actio caleret; ipsi non de injuria, non de adulterio, non de rebus ablatis agere possent; 
libertatem denique ac vocem non haberent. For explanation of this edict, see Mosheim de 
rebus Christ. ante Const. M. p. 925, s—Second edict, Euseb. viii. 6, 8 (cf. viii. 2, 3) : Tov¢ 
ravrayoce Tov éxkAnotav TpoeoTéTac elpxraic Kai Secpoig éveipar. Third ediet, Euseb. 
viii. 6,10: Tove xatakAeiorovs, Gicavtac ev, tdv. Badifery éx’ tAevbepiac, éviota- 
névovcg dé pupiatg Katafaivery Bacavorg. (Cf. Euseb. viii. 2, 3: Tdoy unyarg Oierr 
&avayKdlerv.) , 

18 Fourth edict, Eusebius de martyribus Palsestinae, c.3: Kaéo2ind mpoordéypart 
ravtac Tavdnuel Tove KaTA T6ALY Ove Te Kai omévdew Toic eid@2Zotc ExeAeteToO, K.T. 2. 

19 Lactant.de Mort. persec. c. 15: Constantius, ne dissentire a majorum (i. e., Augus- 
torum) praeceptis videretur, conventicula, id est parietes, qui restitui poterant, dirui 
passus est, verem autem Dei templum, quod est in hominibus, incolume servavit. C. 16: 
Vexebatur ergo universa ferra, et praeter Gallias ab oriente usqne ad occasum tres acer- 
bissimae bestiae saeviebant. Hence the Donatist bishops, a.p. 313, wrote to Constantine 
(Optat. Milevit. i. c. 22): Pater inter caeteros imperatores persecutionem non exercuit, 
et ab hoc facinore immunis est Gallia. : 

20 Martyrs in Palestine: Eusebius de mart. Palaest. liber (Pamphilus, presbyter in 
Caesarea); in other countries, Euseb. H. E. viii. 7-13. (Peter, bishop of Alexandria; 
Lucian, presbyter in Antioch), Ruinart Acta primorum martyrum. Respecting the martyrs 
in Egypt comp. the Coptic acts, which, at least in later times, have been greatly over- 
stated, in De miraculis S. Coluthi et reliquis actorum §. Panesniv martyrum thebaica frag- 
menta duo opera A. A. Georgii. Romae. 1793, 4. In the praef.p. cxl. ss. there is a chrono- 
logical survey of the persecution, and of the Egyptian martyrs. 





CHAP. I—EXTERNAL FORTUNES. §56. THE EMPERORS. 181 


and Spain, however, it ceased entirely under the Augustus 
Constantius Chlorus ; and in Italy and Africa under the Cae- 
sar Severus, it at least abated. After the death of Constantius 
Chiorus (306), his son Constantine not only granted full liberty 
of worship to the Christians in Gaul and Spain; but the two 
Augusti also, Maxentius and Maximian, caused persecution to 
cease in Italy and Africa.” In the east, the persecution had 
been terminated by the edict which Galerius issued shortly be- 
fore his death (311) ;** but in the Asiatic east, six months after, 
Mazximin caused it to be renewed.2?> When Constantine, after 
conquering Maxentius (312), had become sole lord of the west, 
he issued, in conjunction with Licinius, ruler of the European 
east, an edict of universal toleration for all religions. 'This 
was soon followed by a particular edict in favor of the Christ- 
tans, issued from Milan (313).*‘ . This edict. became valid 


21 Lactant. de Mort. persecut. c. 24: Suscepto imperio Constantinus Augustus nihil 
egit prius, quam Christianos cultui ac Deo suo reddere. Haec fuit prima ejus sanctio 
sanctae religionis restitutae fice. restitutionis) . Euseb. viii. 14: Magévriog—dpyouevoc 
gev THY Kal? 7 edie tTiotw én’ dpeckeig kai koAakeia Tod Spyov ‘Poyaiwy kaburexpivaro: 
Tatty Te Toic UnHKOOLG Tov Xpiotiavev aveivar mpoorarret OiwypLdv. 

22 Lactant. de Mort. persecut. c. 34. Euseb. viii. 17: Imp., Caesar Galerius Valerius 
Maximianus,; caet., et Imp. Caesar Flavius Valerius Constantinus, caet., et Imp. Caesar 
Valerius Licinius, caet. Provincialibus S.—Inter caetera, quae pro reipublicae semper 
commodis atque utilitate disponimus, nos quidem volueramus antehac juxta leges veteres 
et publicam disciplinam Romanorum cuncta corrigere, atque id providere, ut etiam 
Christiani, qui parentum suorum reliquerant sectam, ad bonas mentes redirent. Siquidem 
quanam ratione tanta eosdem Christianos voluntas invasisset, et tanta stultitia occupasset, 
at non illa veterum instituta sequerentur, quae forsitan primum parentes eorundem con- 
stituerant (cf. § 55): sed pro arbitrio suo, atque ut hisdem erat libitum, ita sibimet leges 
facerent, quas ebservarent, et per diversa varios populos congregarent? Denique cum 
ejusmodi nostra jussio extitisset, ut ad veterum se instituta conferrent, multi periculo sub- 
jugati, multi, etiam deturbati sunt. Atque cum plurimi in proposito perseverarent, ac 
videremus, nec Diis eosdem cultum ac religionem debitam exhibere, nec Christianorum 
Deum observare ; contemplatione mitissimae nostrae clementiae intuentes et consuetudi- 
nem sempiternam, qua solemus cunctis hominibus veniam indulgere, promtissimam in his 
quoque indulgentiam nostram credidimus porrigendam, ut denuo sint Christiani, et eon- 
venticula sua componant, ita ut ne quid contra disciplinam agant. Alia autem epistola 
. jadicibus significaturi sumus, quid debeant observare. Unde juxta hanc indulgentiam 
nostram debebunt Deum suum orare pro salute nostra, et reipublicae, ac sua, ut undique- 
versum respublica perstet incolumis, et securi vivere in sedibus suis possint. 

8 See the description in Euseb. xi. 1-8. 

% Ap. Lactant. de Mort. persec. c. 48.. The beginning has been preserved only in the 
Greek version apud Euseb. x. 5: "Hdy wiv waédat cxorovvi Teg Tay édevbepiav tic Opyo- 
xetag ok dpvytéav elvat, GA évog ExdoTov TH dvavoig kal Bovajoer éSovciav doréov 
Tov Ta Oeia mpdypata Thueheiv Kata THY abTod mpoaipecty, ExacToy KekeAsdxetuer, TOC 
te Xpiotiavore, wis aipécewc Kai ti Opyokeiac tie EavTGY THY TloTLV OvAGTTELY..’AAN’ 
érewdn roAAai Kai Sudédopor alpécerg (i. e., conditiones, as below) év éxeivy r7 dyrtypady, 
év TH Tole abroic ouvexwph On q Tovatty éovcia, Eddxovv mpoatebeiabat cagac, TLYOV 
dawe Tivég airGv ur’ ddiyov axd Tig ToLatThs mapagvAdsews Gvexpovoyto. (Quamob. 


182 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IIL—A.D. 193-324. 


through the whole Roman empire after the overthrow of Max- 
imin, which soon followed. 

With regard to the history of Constantine’s religious devel- 
opment,”* till the time when he fully embraced Christianity, we 


rem) cum feliciter tam ego Constantinus Aug., quam etiam ego Licinius Aug. apud 

Mediolanum convenissemus, atque universa, quae ad commoda. et securitatem publicam 

pertinerent, in tractatu haberemus; haec inter cetera, quae videbamus pluribus hominibus: 
profutura, vel imprimis ordinanda esse credidimus, quibus divinitatis reverentia contine- 

bater: ut daremus et Christianis et omnibus liberam potestatem sequendi religionem, 

quam quisque voluisset, quo quicquid est divinitatis in sede coelesti, nobis atque omnibus, 

qui sub potestate nostra sunt constituti, placatum ac propitium possit existere. Itaque - 
hoc consilio salubri ac rectissima ratione ineundum esse credidimus, ut nulli omnino facul- 

tatem abnegandam putaremus, qui vel observationi Christianorum, vel ei religioni mentem 

suam dederet, quam ipsi- sibi aptissimam esse sentiret, ut possit nobis summa divinitas, 
cujus religioni liberis mentibus obsequimur, in omnibus solitum fayorem suum benevolen- 

tiamque praestare. Quare scire dignationem tuam convenit, placuisse nobis, ut amotis 
omnibus omnino conditionibus (Euseb. rév aipécewy), quae -prius scriptis ad officium tuum 

_datis super Christianorum nomine videbantur, nunc caveres, ut simpliciter unusquisque 
eorum, qui eandem observandae religionis Christianorum gerunt voluntatem, citra ullam 
inquietudinem ac molestiam sui id ipsum observare contendant. Quae solicitudini tuae 
plenissime significanda esse credidimus, quo scires, nos liberam atque absolutam colendae 
religionis suae facultatem hisdem Christianis dedisse. Quod cum hisdem a nobis indultum 
esse pervideas, intelligit dignatio tua, etiam aliis religionis suae vel observantiae potesta- 
tem similiter apertam et liberam pro quiete temporis nostri esse concessam, ut in colendo, 
quod quisque delegerit, habeat liberam facultatem, quia [nolumus detrahi] honori neque 
cuiquam religioni aliquid a nobis. Atque hoc insuper in persona Christianorum statuen- 
dum esse censuimus; quod si eadem loca, ad quae antea convenire consueverant, de qui- 
bus etiam datis ad officium tuum literis certa antehac forma fuerat comprehensa, priore 
tempore aliqui vel a fisco nostro vel ab alio quocunque videntur esse mercati, eadem 
Christianis sine pecunia et sine ulla pretii petitione, postposita omni frustratione atque 
ambiguitate, restituantur. Qui-etiam dono fuerunt consecuti, eadem similiter hisdem 
Christianis quantocius reddant. Et vel hi, qui emerunt, vel qui dono fuerunt consecuti, si 
putaverint, de nostra benevolentia aliquid vicarium postulent, quo et ipsis per nostram 
clementiam consulatur. _Quae omnia corpori Christianoram protinus per intercessionem 
taam ac sine mora tradi oportebit. Et quoniam iidem Christiani non ea loca tantum, ad 
quae convenire consueverunt, sed alia etiam habuisse noscuntur, ad jus corporis eorum, id 
est ecclesiarum, non hominum singulorum, pertinentia: ea omnia lege, qua superius, 
comprehendimus, citra ullam prorsus ambiguitatem vel controversiam hisdem Christianis, 
id est corpori et conventiculis eorum, reddi jubebis ; supra dicta scilicet ratione servata, ut 
ii, qui eadem sine pretio, sicut diximus, restituerint, indemnitatem de nostra benevolentia 
sperent. In quibus omnibus supra dicto corpori Christianorum intercessionem tuam effi- 
cacissimam exhibere debebis, ut praeceptum nostrum quantocius compleatur; quo etiam 
in hoc per clementiam nostram quieti publicae consulatur. Hactenus fiet, ut sicut supe- 
rius comprehensum est, divinus juxta nos favor, qaem in tantis sumus rebus experti, per 
omne tempus prospere successibus nostris cum beatitudine publica perseveret. Ut autem 
hujus sanctionis benevolentiae nostrae forma ad omnium possit pervenire notitiam, prolata 
programmate tuo haec scripta et ubique proponere, et ad omnium scientiam te perferre 
conveniet, ut hujus benevolentiae nostrae sanctio latere non possit. 

23 Concerning him Franc. Balduini Constantinus M. s. de Const. Imp. legibus eccl. et 
civ. libri ii. Basil. 1556. Hal. 1727. 8. ©. D. A. Martini Ueber die Einfihrung der 
‘christl. Rel. als Staatsrelig. durch den Kaiser Const. Minchen. 1813. 4. J. C. ¥. Manso 
Leben Constantins d.G. Breslau. 1817. 8. (Hug’s Denkschrift zur Ehrenrettung Con- 
stantin’s, in the Zeitschrift f. d. Geistlichk. d. Erzbisth. Freiburg. 1829, Heft 3, S. 1, 
Heinichen Excurs. i. appended to his edition of Euseb. de vita Constant. p. 597, as. 


CHAP. I—EXTERNAL FORTUNES. § 56. THE EMPERORS. 183 


have only isolated intimations and hints. His first religious 
sentiments, like those of his father, were essentially the new- 
platonic. He acknowleged one supreme God who had revealed 
himself in many ways among men,” and honored Apollo in par- 
ticular, as the. revealer of this Being.?” As this idea of Apollo 
and the Christian idea of Christ were obviously similar,”*® so 
Constantine may have thought that he found in it very soon a 
point of union between Christianity and heathenism. That the 
phenomenon which appeared to him in the war against Maxen- 
tius, respecting which the accounts of his contemporaries are so 
different,”® did not yet bring him over exclusively to Christian- 


26 According to Euseb. de vita Const. i. c. 27, when he first began the expedition 
against Maxentius: Ed 0’ évvojeac,\O¢ Kpeitrovoc } KaTa oTpaTiwtiKyy déor abT@ Bon- 
Gciac, dia Tag KaKxoTéyvoug Kai yonTiKac payyavetac Tac Tapa TH Tupdvvw orovdalopuévac, 
Gedv dvelnrer Bonfév.—Evvoet djta éroiov déor Oedv éxtypdwacba Bonbérv. Cyrodv7t &” 
abt@ Evvord tig breropAOEV* Ge wAetévav mpdteEpor Tie dpric égabapévur, ol usv TAetoae 
Ocoig tag a¢Gv abtdv dvaptioavtes éAridag—réhoc obk atotov, eipavto’-—pédvov d& Tov 
éavtod ratépa—rov éxékeva Tov bAwv OGedv dia redone Tinqoavta CwRe, cwTHpa Kai 
gbAaKa tie BactAeiac, dyabod Te TavTic Yopnyov Edpécbat. Tatra rap’ éavTo dtaxpivac 
—rd pév wept rove pndev bvrac Oeove parardlerv—pwpiac Epyov treAduBave: tov 62 
TaTp@ov Trudy wovov Hero deiv Gedv. The Panegyricus incerti, c. 26 (ed. Jaeger, i. 548), 
addressed to the emperor in 313, corresponds with tolerable accuracy to his religious 
views ‘at the time: Te, summe rerum sator, cujus tot nomina sunt, quot gentium linguas 
esse voluisti, quem enim te ipse dici velis, scire non possumus: sive in te quaedam vis 
mensque divina est, qua toto infusus mundo omnibus miscearis elementis, et sine ullo 
extrinsecus accedente vigoris impulsu per te ipse movearis: sive aliqua supra omne 
caelum potestas es, quae hoc opus tuum ex altiore naturae arce despicias ; te, inquam, 
oramus, caet. 

27 Umenius in the Panegyric received by Constantine, 310, at Treves, c. 21: Vidisti 
enim, credo, Constantine, Apollinem tuum, comitante Victoria, coronas tibi laureas offer- 
entem :—vidisti, teque in illius specie recognovisti, cui totius mundi regna deberi vatum 
carmina divina cecinerunt. Quod ego nunc demum arbitror contigisse, quum tu sis, ut 
ille, juvenis, et laetus, et salutifer, et pulcherrimus imperator. Merito igitur augustissima 
illa delubra tantis donariis honestasti, ut jam vetera non quaerant. Jam omnia te vocare 
ad se templa videantur, praecipueque Apollo noster, caet. On several coins of Constantine 
is found the inscription, Soli invicto, Soli invicto comiti. See Ez. Spanheim’s remarks on 
the Césars de l’empereur Julien, p. 285, and Remarques, p. 973. 

28 On the idea of Apollo, see Baur’s Apollonius v. Tyana u. Christus, 8.168. So Julian 
accuses the Alexandrians (Epist. 51, ed. Spanheim, p. 434) of believing "Ijcotv ypjvat Bedv 
Aoyov éxdpyetv, and exhorts them, on the contrary, to worship roy péyav "HAtov, To Cov 
Gyadpa Kai tupvyxov, kai Evvovv, kat dyafoepyév Tod vontod. xatpéc. That Christ was 
_ frequently compared with Apollo, may be seen from Poetae latini minores, ed. 4 Chr. 
Eoeenaert, i iv. 767. : 

29 Lactant. de Mort. persec. c. 44: Commonitus est in quiete Constantinus, utcoeleste 
-signum Dei notaret in scutis, atque ita proelium committaret. Fecit, ut jussus est, et 
traversa x. littera, summo capite circamflexo, Christum in scutis notat. On the contrary, 
the heathen Nazarius in Panegyr. ad Constantinum, c. 14: In ore denique est omnium 

Galliarum, exercitus visos, qui se divinitus missos prae se ferebant. Haec ipsoraum ser- 
mocinatio, hoc inter audientes ferebant, Constantinum petimus, Constantino imus.auxilio. 
Constantine, SEE after his entry into Rome, caused a cross to be put into the 


184 _ FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IIL—A,D. 193-324, | 


ity, is proved by the edict of Milan, which breathes entirely the 
former syncretistic spirit, But he acted only in the spirit of this 
decree when he bestowed favors on the Christian church, such 
as the old religion had always enjoyed. ‘Thus he released their 
_ clergy from the burdensome municipal offices (312 ;*? made 
valid the manumission of slaves in the churches (prior to 316) ;** 


hand of the statue erected to him, with the inscription, rovt@ TO owrypldder onueiv, TH 
 GAnOiwe téyyw tie Gvdpiac, tiv wéhwv tuGv axd Cvyod Tob Tupdvvev diacwbeicary 
qAev0épwoa (Euseb. H. E. ix. 9). ‘It was not till he was an old man that he related to 
Eusebius the story of a cross, which appeared to him at clear mid-day, with the inscription, 
hac vince, rottw vixa. Euseb. de vit. Const. i. 28-32. Sozomen, however, i. 3, and Rufin. 
ix. 9, suppose it to have been a mere dream. The heathen, of course, derided all these 
stories. See Gelasius Cyzic. Hist. Conc. Nicaeni, i. 4. Cf. Mosheim de rebus Christ. ante 
Const. M. p. 978; ss. Concerning the. cipher of Christ’s name, see Minter’s Sinnbilder 
der alten Christen, Heft i. S. 33, ff. The imperial standard, bearing this cipher, was after- 
ward called Labaram. See Du Cange Diss. de nummis infer. aevi, § 20. It is certain 
that Constantine, even before the battle, supposed that he was directed to the cross as to 
a propitious sign, and that this could not have happened in a way to attract general notice. 
If the later narrative of the emperor be not an invention, a light cross of clouds may have 
appeared to him while in a musing and hesitating mood, and have led him to decide; a 
phenomenon which was of importance, for this very reason, only to himself, and which — 
remained ufhobserved by all others. Thus a purple cross, Christmas, 1517, was looked 
upon as a divine sign at Weimar, under the important circumstances of the time (Oratio 
de Joanne Duce Sax. in Melanthonis Opp. ed. Bretschneider, xi. 958). In like manner a 
white cross. which appeared at the entrance of John Frederick, the elector, into Weimar, 
when he returned from captivity (Hortleder vom teutschen Kriege, Th. 2, S. 966). -Several 
like traditions owed their origin at this time to the feeling that the decisive struggle 
between heathenism and Christianity, between Christ and demons, was come. Thus it 
is related that a victory-bringing prayer was taught by an angel to Licinius before the 
battle with Maximin (Lactant. de Mort. persecut. c. 46). Thus, according to Gregory of 
Nazianzum, an army of demons accompanied Julian on his Persian expedition; but 
according to Libanius, it was an army of gods. See Ullmann’s Gregor. v. Nazianz. S. 100. 

30’ The first law ad Anulinum Procons. Africae apud Euseb. H. E. x. c. 7, confirmed by 
a second, Cod. Theod. xvi. tit. ii. 1. 1, A.D. 313, and repeated in the third, I. c. l. 2, a.p, 319. 
The last: Qui divino cultui ministeria impendunt, i. e., hi qui Clerici appellantur, ab 
omnibus omnino muneribus excusentur, ne sacrilego livore quorandam a divinis obsequiis 
avocentur. Here Constantine merely transferred to the Christian clergy a privilege 
enjoyed by heathen priests. Cf. Symmachus, lib. x. Ep. 54: Insigne ducitur Sacerdotii 
vacare muneribus. Cod. Theod. xii. tit.1, 1.75, and Gothofred. ad h. 1. The presidents of 
the Jews also enjoyed this immunity. Cf. Cod. Theod. xvi. tit. viii. 1.3, aD. 321. Decu- 
rionibus Agrippmensibus: Cunctis Ordinibus generali lege concedimus, Judaeos vocare 
ad Curiam. - Verum, ut aliquid ipsis ad solatium pristinae observationis relinquatur, binos 
vel ternos privilegio perpeti (i.e., perpetuo) patimur nullis nominationibus occupari. Lex. 
2, A.D. 330: Qui devotione tota Synagogis Judaeorum Patriarchiis vel Presbyteriis se 
dederunt, et in memorata secta degentes legi ipsi praesident, immunes ab omnibus tam 
personalibus quam civilibus muneribus perseverent. Lex. 4, a-D. 331: Hiereos, et Archi- 
synagogos, et Patres Synagogarum, et caeteros, qui Synagogis deserviunt, ab omni cor- 
porali munere liberos esse praecipimus. 

31 According to Sozomen, i.9, he issued three laws on this subject. The first is lost. 
The second may be seen in Cod. Justin. i. tit. 13, 1. 1, A.D. 316. The third, ibid. 1. 2, and 
Cod. Theod. iv. tit. 7, 1. unic. A.D. 321. That.this manumission was transferred from the 
heathen temple to the churches, is shown by Gothofredus on the last law. 





CHAP. l—EXTERNAL FORTUNES. § 56. THE EMPERORS. 195 


allowed legacies to be left to the catholic churches,** and con- 
tributed a considerable sum himself to the- support of the Af 
rican clergy.5? Other regulations in favor of the Christians owed 
their immediate origin to that syncretistic tendency of the em- 
peror. Thus he set bounds to the enmity of the Jews against 
the Christians, their rigid inflexibility not at all agreeing with 
his feelings.** He abolished several regulations offensive to 
the Christians (315) ;*° and decreed the general observance of 
Sunday (321).*° It can not appear strange that, although he 


32 Cod. Theod. xvi. tit. 2, 1. 4; and Cod. Just. i. tit. 2, 1 1: Habeat unusquisque licentiam, 
sanctissimo catholico vemeabiiine concilio decedens bonorum quod optaverit relinquere. 

33 Namely, 3000 folles (upwards of 70,000 thalers). Cf. Const. Epist. ad Caecilianum 
Episc. Carthag. in Euseb. H. E. x.c. 6. 

34 Cod. Theod. xvi. tif. 8,1. 1, aD. 315: Judaeis, et Majoribus eorum, et Putriarchis 
volumus intimari, quod si qui, post hanc legem, aliquem, qui eorum feralem fugerit sectam, 
et ad Dei cultum respexerit, saxis aut alio furoris genere (quod nunc fieri cognoscimus) 
ausus fuerit adtemptare, mox flammis dedendus et cum omnibus suis particibus concre- 
mandus. Si quis vero ex populo ad eorum nefariam sectam accesserit, et conciliabulis 
eorum se adplicaveret, cum ipsis poenas meritas sustinebit. 

35 Cod. Theod. ix. tit. 40, 1. 2, a.D. 315: Si quis in ludum fuerit, vel in metallum damna 
tus, minime in ejus facie scribatar:—quo facies, quae ad similitudinem pulchritudinis 
coelestis est figurata, minime maculetur. Probably in the same year vetus veterrimumque 
suppliciam patibulorum et cruribus suffringendis primus removit (Aur. Victor de Caes. 
c. 41; Sozom. i. 8. Cod. Theod. viii. tit. 15, 1.1, a.D. 320: Qui jure veteri caelibes habe- 
bantur: imminentibus legum (namely L. Julia and Papia Poppaea) terroribus liberentur, 
&c. (Cf. Euseb. de vit. Const. iv. 26.) 

36 The first law of March, 321, is in Cod. Justin. iii. tit. 12, 1.3: Omnes judices, urban- 
aeque plebes, et cunctarum artium officia venerabili die Solis quiescant. Ruri tamen 
positi agrorum culturae libere licenterque inserviant; quoniam frequenter evenit, ut non 
aptius alio die frumenta sulcis, aut vinae scrobibus mandentar (as agricultural labors of © 
this kind had been permitted on festivals, according to a Roman custom, Virgil. Georg. 
i. v. 268, ss. Cato de Re rust. c. 2; cf. Erycius Puteanus de Nundinis Romanis, c. 10 in 
Graevii Thes. Antiquitt. Rom. t. viii. p. 658). The second of June, in the same year, in - 
the Cod. Theod. ii. tit. 8, 1. 1, with the addition: Emancipandi et manumittendi die festo 
cuncti licentiam. habeant, et super his rebus actus non prohibeantur. The Egyptian week, 
the seven days of which were dedicated to the planets, had been made known to the 
Romans by the astrologers even since the first century. In the second, the days were 
frequently named after the planets (Dio Cassius, xxxvii. c. 18. S. Mursinna de hebdumade 
gentilium et dierum a planetis denominatione in Jo. Oelrichs Germaniae literatae opuscula 
historico-philologica-theologica. Bremae. 1772. i. 113). As Christ was often compared 
with Sol, or Apollo (see above, note 28), so Constantine believed, perhaps, that in the 
festival of the dies solis, as a festival of Christ and the sun at the same time, be found a 
point of friendly union between both religions, directly opposed though they were to each 
other. He transferred the Nundines to Sunday : comp. the stone inscription apud Erycius 
Puteanus de Nundinis Romanis, c. 26: Constantinus—provisione etiam pietatis suae 
Nundinas die solis perpeti anno constituit. Still the Nundines and weeks were both 
in use, and both are found in a calendar composed about 354 (in Graevii Thes. t. viii. 
p: 97) beside each other, until Theodosius I. made the law respecting the observance 
of Sunday strict, Cod. Theod. viii. tit. 8, 1.3. Eusebius de vit. Constant. iv. 18, and 
Sozomen, i. 8, relate that esley was also observed, as well as Sunday, by order of Con- 
stantine. 


186 FIRST PERIOD,—DIV. III.—A.D. 193-324. 


allowed exactly the same freedom to heathenism, and not only 
so, but even, in his capacity of emperor, observed the heathen 
practices at the same time that he gave so many privileges to 
Christianity,” he should notwithstanding prejudice the minds 
of the heathen people by those very measures, inasmuch as he 
gained over the affections of the Christians toward himself. In 


‘ the mean time, the successful issue of his undertakings must 


¥ 


have strengthened him in the direction he took, in accordance 
with his peculiar mode of thinking; and it could not escape his 
political sagacity, that it would be most advantageous for him 
to have on his side even the smaller party, since it was the 
more closely united, and more animated by a living soul. In 
this manner the Christians formed the nucleus of Constantine’s 
party when the relation between him and Licinius became 
looser. Hence, for this very reason, Licinius sought to obtain 
a more decided party by renewed attention to the religion of the 
pagans, and by persecution of the Christians.** Accordingly, 
the struggle that arose between Licinius and Constantine, .p. 


323, was at the same time a struggle between Christianity and 


heathenism. Licinius was defeated, and Constantine openly 
professed the Christian faith,** though he still put off baptism.*® 


37 Cod. Theod. ix. 16, 1, 2 (A.D. 319), xvi. 10, 1 (A.D. 321), Zosimus, ii. 29, "Eyp7to dé Ere 
kai toig marpiote lepoic. : 

38 Euseb. H. E. x. 8, de vita Constant. ii. 3, ss. 

» 39 Euseb, de vita Const. iii. 2: Tov Xpiorév tod Geod civ xappyoia ta macy TpecBebwv 
ei¢ mavrac dieTéXet, uy &yKaAvnTOuEevoc THY CwTHplov éxnyopiav. After the year 323, 
heathen symbols disappear from Constantine’s coins. J. Eckhel Doctrina Numoram 
veterum, p. ii. vol. viii. (Vineb. 1798. 4,) p. 79. 

#9 Modern Catholic Church historians no longer maintain what was asserted as late as 
Baronius, Schelstraten, and others, that Constantine was baptized in Rome, by Sylvester, 
A.D. 324. Comp. Euseb. de vita Constant. iv. 61, 62. That Constantine made donations 
to Sylvester on this occasion is related first in the Acta Sylvestri, then by Hadrian I, a-p. 
780 (see below, in volume second. Div. 1,§ 5). In the ninth century an original document 
respecting a great gift of land came to light. The supposititious character of both authorities 
was perceived so early as 999, by Otto IIL. and in 1152 by the Romans (vol. ii.). The 
spirited attack of Laurentius Valla (about 1440, vol. ii. Div. 5, § 154) did not produce 
much effect till after the Reformation. Since then the investiture has been defended 
merely by some of the older Catholic scholars, especially the Jesuits J. Gretser and Nic. 
Schaten; but the deed of investiture has been generally given up as spurious. 

The number of persecutions has been fixed at ten since the fourth century, agreeably to 
Exod. vii. 10, and Apoc. xvii. 1-14. Different calculations: Sulpicius Severus Hist. sacr. 
ii. 33: Sacris vocibus decem plagis mundum afficiendum pronunciatum est: ita qaum jam 
novem fuerint, quae superest, ultima erit. On the other side, Augustin. de civ. Dei, xviii 
52: Nonnullis visum est, vel videtur, non amplius ecclesiam passuram persecutiones 
usque ad tempus Antichristi, quam quot jam passa est, id est decem, ut undecima novis- 
sima sit ab Antichristo. The enumeration in Augustine l.c. is the following (the devia- 





CHAP. L—EXTERNAL FORTUNES. §57. SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY. 187 


§. 57. 
SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY. 


In this division of time also, the progress of Christianity was 
considerable,’ especially in Gawl.? In the end of it we find the 
first traces of bishops on the Rhine.2 About the same time 


tions in Sulpicius Severus, ii. 29-32, are inclosed in parentheses): I. Neronis, II. Domitani, 
Ill. Trajani, (IV. Hadriani): IV. (V.) Marci Aurelii, V. (VI.) Sept. Severi, VI. Maximini, 
VI. (VIL.) Decii, VIII. (VIII.) Valeriani, IX. Aureliani, X. (IX.) Diocletani. Augustinus 
l. c. adds: Sed ego illa re gesta in Aegypto istas persecutiones prophetice significatas 
esse non arbitror, quamvis ab eis, qui hoc putant, exquisite et ingeniose illa singula his 
singulis comparata videantur: non prophetico spiritu, sed conjectura mentis humanae, a 
aliquando ad verum pervenit, aliquando fallitur. 

1 Origines c. Cels. iii. p. 116, points to this: Xprotiavode¢ un duedeiv Tod mavTayod THE 
oikouévang éxtorelpety Tov Adyov. Tivéc yoov épyov meroinvra éxreptépyecbar od pdvov 
ToAetc, GAAd Kai KGyac, Kal éxavAeic. Respecting the extension of Christianity about 
300, see Arnobius, i. c. 16. Si Alamannos, Persas, Scythas (Dii) iccirco voluerunt devinci, 
quod habitarent et degerent in eoruam gentibus Christiani ; quemadmodum Romanis tri- 
buere victoriam, cum habitarent et degerent in eorum quoque gentibus Christiani? Si in 
Asia, Syria iccirco mures et locustas effervescere prodigialiter voluerunt, quod ratione 
consimili habitarent in eorum gentibus Christiani: in Hispania, Gallia cur eodem tempore 
horam nihil natum est, cum innumeri viverent in his quoque provinciis Christani? Si 
apud Getulos, Tinguitanos hujus rei causa siccitatem satis ariditatemque miserunt, eo 
anno cur messes amplissimas Mauris Nomadibusque tribuerunt cum religio similis his’ 
quoque in regionibus verteretur ? 

2 Passio Saturnini Episc. Tolosani, c. 2, apud Ruinart: Postquam sensim et gradatim in 
omnem terram Evangeliorum sonus exivit, parique progressu in regionibus nostris Apos- 
tolorum praedicatio coruscavit: cum _rarae in aliquibus civitatibus ecclesiae paucorum 
Christianorum devotione consurgerent ;—ante annos L. sicut actis publicis (Codd. alii: 
ante annos satis plurimos), i. e., Decio et Grato Consulibus (i, e., 250, a.D.) sicut fideli 
recordatione retinetur, primum et summum Christi Tolosa civitas s. Saturninum habere 
coeperat sacerdotem. From this Gregorius Turonensis (about 590) Hist. Franc. i. c. 28: 
Decii tempore septem viri Episcopi ad praedicandum in Gallias missi sunt, sicut historia 
passionis s. martyris Saturnini denarrat. Ait enim: Sub Decio et Grato Consulibus, &e., 
as above. Hi ergo missi sunt: Turonicis Gratianus Episcopus, Arelatensibus Trophimus 
Episc., Narbonae Paulus Episc., Tolosae Saturninus Episc., Parisiacis Dionysius Episc., 
_Arvernis Stremonius Episc., Lemovicinis Martialis est destinatus Episcopus. This is 
evidently an arbitrary combination of several traditions. Trophimus must have been first 
bishop of Arles even before Decius, for in 254 Marcian had been for a long time bishop of 
the place. See Cypriani, Ep. 67, Pearson Annales Cypriciani ad ann. 254, § 7, ss. With 
this also agrees Zosimi P. Epist. i. ad Episcopos Galliae, A.D. 417 (apud Constant) : Metro- 
politanae Arelaténsium urbi vetus privilegium minime derogandum est, ad quam primum 
ex hac sede Trophimus summus Antistes, ex cujus fonte totae Galliae fidei rivulos acce- 
perunt, directus est. 

* First, in the commission appointed by Constantine to decide upon the Donatist contre- 
versy in Rome, in the year 313, Optat. Milev. de schism. Donatist. i. c. 23: Dati sunt 
jadices Maternus ex Agrippina civitate: then among the names subscribed to the acts 
of the Concil. Arelatense,'in the year 314: Maternus episcopus, Macrinus diaconus de 


é 


i 
ret : 


188 ' FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. TIL—A.D. 193-324. 


they also appear in Britain The first traces of Christianity 
are now seen in Vindelicia.© Even among the Goths it had 
become known by means of captives.° 





SECOND CHAPTER. 


HERETICS. 


§ 58. 


ELCESAITISM OF THE CLEMENTINES. 


Clementina, primum edita in Cotelerii Patribus apostolicis, i. 597. D. v..Cdlin in Ersch 
u. Grubers Encyclopadie, xviii. 36. (Art. Clementinen.) Die Clementinen nebst den 
verwandten Schriften u. der Ebionitismus von Adolph Schliemann. Hamburgh. 1844. &. 


As Christianity had come to the west from the east, so the 
occidental church continued in the second century to be entirely 
dependent on the oriental. Without a peculiar development. of 
doctrine and literature of its own, it merely received the product 
of the east; but in this way it also drew within itself the 
different parties of the east. Rome in particular, the capital 
of the empire and seat of a great church, presented an alluring 
field to all parties to call forth their activity. The different 
Gnostic sects,! like the Montanists, labored with emulation to 
gain over this important church to themselves; and all found 
in it more or less sympathy and adherence. Accordingly, Rom- 
ish Christendom in the second century was internally divided 
in many ways; a condition which was calculated not only to 
lead many Christians astray, and to induce them to waver, but to 


civitate Agrippinensium.—Agroecius episcopus, Felix exorcista de civitate Treverorum. 
Nic. ab Honteim Hist. diplom. Trevirana in prodromo, t. i. p. 64, ss. Walch de Materno 
ano, in the Commentationes Soc. Gotting. vol. i. (1779) p. 1, ss. 

* Names subscribed to the Concil. Arelat.: Eborius episcopus, de civitate Eboracensi, 
provincia Britannia.—Restitutus episcopus, de civitate Londinensi, provincia suprascripta. 
Adelfius episcopus, de civitate colonia Londinensium (perhaps Colonia Lindi, i. e., Lin- 
coln); comp. Jac. Usserii Britannicarum ecclesiar. antiquitt. Lond. 1687. Bingham 
Origg. eccl. tom. iii. p. 557, ss. 

5 Afra burnt in Augsburg A.D. 304. See the Acta in Ruinart. 

6 Sozomen. H. H. ii. 6. Philostorg. H. E. ii. 5. a 

+ Valentinus (§ 45) and Marcion (§ 47) came in person to Bome. , & 


\ 


ws 


a. 
CHAP. IL—HERETICS. § 58. ELCESAITES. 189 


lay open a dangerous unprotected side to the attacks of heathen- 
ism. There, a philosophically educated Christian of Rome,? 
toward the end of the second century, took up the idea that 
Christianity in its original state must be preserved among the 
Jewish Christians as the descendants of the oldest ehurch. 
Probably he sought out this church in its isolation, and found 
it divided into several parties, but he also discovered among 
the Licesaites’ a speculative doctrinal creed already formed, 


‘which seemed to him perfectly adapted both to vanquish hea- 


thenism and to remove the multiplicity of Christian sects. 
He received it, therefore as the original Christian doctrine 
which had obtained its central point in James,‘ and in Peter its 
most important defender, and appropriated all the more readily 
the Eleesaite rejection of Paul, who, insomuch as he was not 
an immediate disciple of Christ, could not have been a genuine 
apostle,° because the Pauline development of Christianity had 
run out into so great a state of disunion, and appeared to have 
attained its height in the Marcionite errors. Hence he com~- 
posed the Clementines (+d KAnuévria) consisting of three pro- 
logues and twenty (but now only 19) homilies, that he might 
be able to proclaim to Christendom at large the apostolic truth 
which had long been concealed, by apostolic lips also. The his- 
torical form in which he clothed the whole work, he took in 
part from the events of his own life. But he reckoned upon. it 
also for the purpose of procuring apostolie authority to his doc- 
trine, and obtaining an introduction for it into Rome in partic- 
ular. As he himself prosecuted the search, so he represents 
the apostolic Clement (who was highly esteemed in the recol- 
lection of the Roman church, and who appears here in the char- 


2 For evidence to show that the author of the Clementines was a Roman, see Baur’s 
Christuspartei in aer korinth. Gemeinde, in the Tiibingen Zeitschr. f. Theol. 1831, iv. 199 
Schliemann, p. 549. 

3 See above, § 32. 

* In the Clementines, James appears as the chief bishop of all Christendom, to whom 


~ Peter must constantly give an account of his doings, Schliemann, S. 86,213. In the let- 
_ ters prefixed to the Clementines, Peter writes to him as 74 xupig, kal émtoxd7y Tic dytag 


bxxdqoiac. Clement writes: laxé6w, TO xupiv, Kal éxiokdrwv éxioxdry, vérovte 62 
THY. ‘lepovoaAjue dyiav ’EGpaiwy éxxAnciav, Kai tag mavTayH Geod mpovoie idpubeicas 

a =p 

= “What Peter, Hom. xvii. 19, says against Simon Magus, is said to refer to Paul: Ei 

tic 08 dv onraciav mpo¢ didackadiav copia biivat dvvatat; Kai el pév épeic, dvvarév 


boriy* sm Ti oy éviaut@ éypyyopécw rapauévor GuiAncev 6 dixdéoKadog; Schlie- 
m ye 's 


+ 
r 


wy ‘ 


' mpGro¢ 720ev (John the Baptist, Matt. xi. 11), elr 





acter of a distinguished Roman, whose mind had received a 
philosophical culture)® as journeying in the East, impelled by 
first, oe the truth long vainly sought,’ there meeting with 

or, @ full satisfaction from him. Peter, the only 









in opposition to Paul, as the proper’ apostle 


of the r Gentiles, ® 8 as, ike founder of the Romish church, and the 


first bishop of Rome.® He triumphantly refutes all kinds of 
error which had been advocated by different. persons; not on 
the popular faith and philosophy of the beet also 
Christian aberrations of the second century. 4 
particular are combated in the mo d 
in addition to them the anist vropheay he the hysnaee ce 


do¢trine of the Trinity,!* and millennarianism. On the other 
ey e é 






* He is manifestly confounded with Flavius Clemens, the relation of Domitian (6 


33, note 4). See Baur in the Tubingen Zeitschr. f. Theol. 1831, iv. 199. Schliemann, 








tive in Hom. i., in its essential features, may have been. modeled after the 

sof the author. 

says, Hom. ii. 17, with reference to the law of s zygies : Ev yevyntoig yuvaikav 
| év vloic dvOpdrwv debrepoc énqAder. 

Tatty TH tase dkodovdodyra Ovvatov 7 voeiv, v Lipwv 6b po éuod ele Ta &6vn 

proc é2O0v, Kai tivog Ov Tvyxéveo, 6 per” exely ( Avbde, kai éredOOv we oKd6T 


o0¢.-O¢ dyvoia yvdotc, G¢ véow lacie. Otta¢ d7, be dAnhinc 4 huiv mpoontnc elpnev, 






‘ mp@Tov pevdéc Osi EARS Coty yerso7 ind whavov Tivdc, Wai elf obta¢ peta KaBaipcowy 


tov dyiov Térov ciay Ginbic xpioa dtareugbjvat eic ExavépOwow Tév écouévur 
alpécewy. /* 

® In the letter prota e Clementines, of Clement to James, Peter is designated, 
6 tie dicewe TO OKOTELYéTEpOY Tod KOdcuOV pépoc, WE TévToY iKavadTeEpoc, dwTioa KeAev- 
obeic, kai KaTropbicat Suvnbetc,—péxpte évtaida 7H ‘Péun yevouevoc, Geo8ovAprw didac- 
Kadia odor dvOpdrove. It is then related how he transferred his s xabédpa to Clement, 
shortly before his own martyrdom. oe 

10 Schliemann, S. 101. 

11 Schliemann, S. 90. In particular, the doctrine of Marcion, see Baur’s christliche 
Gnosis, §. 313. 

12 Hom. iii. 12, ss.; xvii. 13, ss. Schwegler’s Montanismus, §.142. Schliemann, S. 547. 

33 Hom. xvi. 12: Ele éoriv, 6 7h abroo copia elmov" ToLpowper dvOparov* 7 d2 codgia, 
Gorep idia nvebpart, abroc det ouvéxatpev* qvertat pev O¢ yoxn TO GeO, éxreiverar d2 
an’ abrod, | Og xeip Snutovpyovca 76 may'—Kata yap éxraowy Kal ovoToARy H wovac dvac 
elvat vouiCerat. (In explanation of the éxreivecy, cf. Philo de somniis, p. 577: 6 avOpém- 
vog vooc,—Kabarep Hasoc, Tac abTov Ovvduete Gorep axtivac eic GAov Teiver. De nomi- 
num mutat. p. 1048, ro 6v—duvduete Erevvev ele yéveowy én’ ebepyecia Tot avotabévroc. 
Quod deterius potiori insidiari solet, p. 172: Téuvera ovdéy Tod Geiov Kar’ axdptyouw, 
GiAd pévov éxretverar). Hom. xvi.15:'O Kbpto¢ nuav obre Oeove elvar égbEyEaTo mapa 
tov KTioavra Ta wavTa, odte adbtov Gedy elvac dv@yépevoev. Comp. Baur in the Tib. 
Zeitschr. f, Theol. 1831, iv. 134. 

4 It is the false feminine prophesying which, tov wapévra éniyerov TiObTOV He Tpoika 
ddcecy éwayyéAnerat (Hom. i iii. 23) : on the contrary, the male prophesying toi pEAAovTos 
aldvoc rig éAridac unvoar (ec. 26). 






ry 





disciples of Christ who had come to. 









hand, Peter proclaims and supports by mighty miraculous 

is deeds the following doctrine: God, a pure, simple being of 

_» light, has allowed the world to be formed i in a antago isms, and 
» so also the history of the world and of m 

onisms (ovgvyiae) connected by pairs, in ¥ 

~ stantly precedes the higher. From the 












Ge0d, Osiov mvedpua, Treva Gytov) from time to time in the ‘tin of 


individual men “Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, i. ee Moses, 


an ou: € ve same truth, and in Jesus caused es also to 
e con unieated. t the heathen." _ According to the law of 









"> 
0 . 


“ syzgies,” false prophets also 





truth. Thus the original dootdities af Mossian are perfectly 
identical with Christianity ;° though they have not been preserv- 
ed in their purity in the Pentateuch,'® which was not com 
till long after Moses; and in the present form of Judaism 
been utterly perverted. in general, the truth has been 
stantly maintained in its ‘its purity only by a few by means of 


secret tradition.” Man i free, and must expect after death a 
‘ Mey 






15 Neander’s Entwickelan der gnost. stems, S. 361, ff Dr. K. A. Credner aber 
‘Essaer u. Ebioniten, in Winer’s Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Tl i. 237, ff. and 277, ff. 
Baur’s christl. Guosis, 8. 300. Schliemann, 8. 130. Ht 

16 Hom. iii. 20: ’Exeivoc,—dc ax’ dpyic alévoc dua toig’é vy popoac dAAdoowr, 
tov aidva tpéxet, uéxpic Ste iWiwv ypévev TrxOv, did Tove KaudTove Heod é2€EL yptcOeic, 
éic dei ec tv dvdravotv. The original unpersonal Holy Spirit united himself in Adam 
with a human person, which appeared, constantly the same, as the true prophet succes- 
sively in different forms (Baur’s Gnosis, S. 362), and is destined for the government of the 
everlasting kingdom. “Ifone abides by this view, he will not have to assume with Schlie- 
mann, S. 142, that a variation prevails in the Clementines respecting the doctrine of the 
Spirit of God, because he is represented sometimes as an unpersonal energy, sometimes 
as an hypostasis. 

17 Hom. iii. 23: Ado juiv yevixal éotwoav mpoonteta.” H pev appevixn: 768 devrépa, 
OijAve odca, tpTH GpicOn EpyecOar év 7TH THY ovlvyidv Tmpoedbice. ‘H pwév odv év 
yevvyntoig yuvatkGv ovaa, O¢ OfAEra, TOU viv Kéopov ExayyeAdouévn, apoeviny sivat 

. mlorevecOar Oéher- dtd KAéExTOVEA TA TOD. dpcevog orépuaTa, Kai Toi¢ idiotg Tie CapKo¢ 
onépuacw éxtoxérrovoa, O¢ bia idia cuvexdéper TA yevvyuata, TOUT’ EoTiy TA pijyara, 
‘kal Tov napbvta éxiyetov TAODTOY, O¢ mpoika décerv ExayyéAAeTat. 

8 Hom. viii. 6: Mud dv’ dudotépwv (Moses and Christ) didackadiag odons, TOY TOUTWY 
Tid memtorevKdta 6 Gedc drodéyerat. ©. 7: TAjy el Ti¢ Karasiadein Tove dudorépoue ért- 
yvOvat, dc pea éidackariac in abtév kexnpvypévne, obroc ava év Oe TAobatoc xarnpid- 
UNTaL, Th TE  dpxaia véa TO Xpdvy kal be kava mahaa 6vTa vevonkac. Cf. Hom. Xvili. 14, 






19 “Hom. iii. 47. 
20 Hom. iii. 19: Christ designated as Ta dn’ alGvocg év KpunxTta@ aéiotc Mc Ss 1 
cApoadam, BExp vy 2Ovev tov EAcov éx Telvav, kai poxac wavtov édedr, , 


* 





ee ner : 


192 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV, III.—A.D. 193-324. 


> 


spiritual -continuation of life, with rewards and punishments. 
The. conditions of happiness are love to God and man, and strug- 
gling against the demons which draw-away to evil, through sens- 


. uality. For this last purpose these sectaries prescribed absti- 


nence from animal food, frequent fastings and washings, recom-. 
‘mended. early marriage” and voluntary poverty, but rejected all 
sacrifices. 

While the author of the Clementines, from the position of the 
Elcesaite doctrine, combats parties with which the Elcesaites 
had never come into contact, he must necessarily go into many 
new developments of doctrine. How free his movements were 
in these may be seen from the fact that he frequently used for 
his purpose our four gospels, unknown to the Elcesaites, with 
great critical and exegetical arbitrariness.” On this very ac- 
count we might indeed doubt whether he left the Elcesaite doc- 
trine itself entirely untouched. 

Although the doctrine here presented could not caleulate on 
any general dissemination, and found several adherents only in 
Rome and Cyprus,* yet many felt themselves attracted by the 
historical contents of the production, and its refutation of the 
heathens and the Gnostics; and since the author knew how to 
account for the late appearance of his work, which pretended to 


3 proceed forth from the apostolic age,** they rather thought of it 


as the corruption of a genuine writing by heretics than a for- 
gery. Hence, another person was soon found, probably an Al- 


2t Hom. iii. 26: ("O dAnOyo mpodyrne) yduov vouoreter, éyxpdterav cvyyepel, cic dyvelav 
mavrac dye. C. 68: (Ol mpecPirepor) véwy pH udvov KaTeTeryéTWCaD Tove yduove, GAA 
Kai Tév rpoBeBnKkdtav, wy Tac Céovca 7 dpedic mpoddce: wopvetac 7 moryeiacg Aormov 
mTpocevéyKoe TH ExKAnoia. . 

22 A complete collection of the passages from the gospels in the Clementines may be 
found in Credner’s Beitrage zur Einleit. in d. bibl. Schriften, i. 284. According to him the 
Gospel of Peter lies at the foundation of it. But the passages characteristic of John that 
appear in the work, can hardly be referred to another gospel; and, if we take these as 
the standard, we can not expect that the gospel citations generally should be made ver- 
batim. 

23 Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 18, says, that Ebionites were in Cyprus (by this general 
appellation for all heretical Jewish Christians he here means this party). Origen (ap. 
Euseb. vi. 38) calls the heresy of the Elcesaites, veweri éravicrapévyv. Since no trace 
is found of it in the second century beyond Palestine, we may assume that it was first 
established in those places by the Clementines. 

24 Peter entreats James, in his letter prefixed to the Clementines, to communicate his 
sermons (tac GiB2ovce ov TOY Knpvyudtwr) only to faithful persons under the seal of 
secrecy; and James guarantees the secrecy by a dsayuaprupia added, according to which 
those books should be made known only to tried brethren, after they had agreed by an 
oath to keep the secret. Comp. Hom. ii. 17, above, note 8. 


_ 





~ CHAP. 1L—HERETICS, §.59. MONTANISTS IN THE WEST. 193 


exandrian, who. conceived the idea of purifying it fom fiapats 


ical depravations, by altering it entirely according to the stand- 


ard of orthodoxy in'his day. In this way arose the production 
which appears under different names among the ancients,”’ and 
which still exists, but only in the Latin translation Kg Rufinus, 
under the title Recognitiones Clementis, libb. x.2° The re- 
quirements of a much later orthodoxy gave rise to the émtouq.?” 


CS 
har 
re ™ 


§ 59. 


OPPOSITION AT ROME TO MONTANISM, AND THE ASIATIC TIME OF 
CELEBRATING EASTER. 


About the time when the Clementines appeared, there was 
generally apparent at Rome a lively striving after unity by re- 
moving all elements whose tendency was to  finback it. 

‘Montanism had not only obtained many friends in the west- 
ern church, without giving rise to an external division,’ but 
had even gained besides ie important influence over the pre- 
' vailing ecclesiastical gore ples.2 "The bishop of Rome was al- 

ready on the point of entering into ecclesiastical communion 
with the Asiatic Montanists, wha had been excluded from the 
churches of their native country, when Praneas, a confessor, 
came from Asia to Rome (about 192), and so altered the disposi- 
- tion toward them, that all communion with them was renounced.? 


25 Tlepiodoc Iérpov or KAnpevror (Origenes in Genesin, t. iii. c. 14), Hpdfece Tétpov 
(Photius Bibl. cod. 112 and 113), Historia Clementis (Opus imperf. in Matth. ad xxiv. 24), 
-Gesta Clementis, vera disputatio Petri Ap. contra falsitatem Simonis Magi (in Codd.). 

26 Schliemann’s die clementin. Recognitionen eine Ueberarbeitang der Clementinen 
(reprinted from Pelt’s Theolog. Mitarbeiten. Jahrg. 4, Heft. 4). Kiel. 1843. The same 

author's Clementinen, S. 265, ff. According to him the composition of them took place in 
- the period between 212 and 230. But the reasons adduced in favor of Rome, as the place 
of writing, can not be regarded as decisive. The Christology of the Recognitions (Schlie- 
mann, S. 331) obviously points to Alexandria. : 
_ 27 Schliemann, S. 334. 

1 See above, § 48, note 17-19, below, note 4. 

« 2 See above, § 53, note 39. o 

3 Tertull. adv. Praxeam, c’1. Nam idem (Praxeas) tunc episcoppm Romanum, agnos? 
_ centem jam prophetias Montani, Priscae, Maximillae, et ex ea agnitione pacem ecclesiis- 
. Asiae et Phrygiae inferentem, falsa de ipsis prophetis et ecclesiis eoram adseverando, et 

praecessorum ejus auctoritates defendendo, coégit et literas pacis revocare jam emissas, 
et a proposito recipiendorum charismatum concessare. Victor is usually regarded as that 
Romish bishop (185-197) ; but Neander (Antignosticus, S. 485) and Schwegler (Montanismag, 


VOL. 118) 


194 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. Tt—aA. D. 193=324.~ 


This, then, there began in ‘the west also a sontrovateyt concern- 
ing the distin guisksinne doctrines of Montanism, which was con- 
ducted with violence, especially in Africa.*. At the head of the 
Montanist party stood Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullian NUS, 
presbyter in Carthage, and the earliest Latin ecclesiasti 3 
- writer of note—a man whose modes of thought were stride "s 
severe, of a violent. character, and of a rich though somewhat» _ 
too sensuous imagination. In his writings it may be seen that 
he developed his Montanist tendency in a way increasingly rug- 








S. 250) declare themselves in favor of Eleutherus (170-185), because an incipient yielding to 
the Montanists does not appear like the stiff hierarchical character of Victor. That character 
has been inferred merely from his conduct toward the Quartodecimani. But since expe- 
rience shows that those who renounce certain views, become the most violent opponenits 
of them, Victor's violent measures against every thing which appears to coincide with 
Montanism, may be best explained on the supposition that he was at first favorably dis- 
posed toward them. Chronology is in favor of Victor ; for, by the supposition that Eleu- 
therus was the person, there is too long an interval between the first appearance of Praxeas 
in Rome, and of Tertullian’s, lib. adv. Praxeam (composed according to Noesselt 204 
or 205). 

* An important particular of it is given’ by Tertullian de Pudicit. c. 1: Audio etiara 
edictum esse propositum, et quidem peremptorium: Pontifex scilicet Maximus, Episcopus 
Episcoporum, edicit: ego et moechiae et fornicationis delicta poenitentia functis dimitto 
Cap. 5: Quid agis mollissima et hamanissima’ disciplina? Idololatram quidem et homi 
~. eidam semel damnas, moechum vero de medio excipis? Comp. above, § 53, note 39 
According to Petavius (not. ad Epiph. Haer. 59. p. 228), it is usually assumed that this 
Pontifex Maximus is the Romish bishop Zephyrinus (192-217). But the appellation in 
question does not refer to a real, but to an usurped dignity. It points ironically to the - 

circumstance, that the bishop who had made the regulation. arrogated to himself, by so 
doing, the prerogatives of the only high-priest, Christ. Most probably the allusion is to 
the bishop of Carthage. Particularly important for the history of the controversy is Ter- 
tullian. lib. de Velandis virginibus. In support of his demand, yirgines nostras velari 
oportere, ex quo transitum aetatis suae fecerint, in order to set aside the argument brought 
against him from custom, cap. 2, Tertullian appeals to the consuetudo of the apostolic 
churches in Greece, and some barbarous countries: Non possumus respuere consuetudinem, 
quam damnare non possumus, utpote non extraneam, quia non extraneorum : cum quibus 
. scilicet communicamus jus pacis et nomen fraternitatis. Una nobis et illis fides, unus 
Deus, idem Christus, eadam spes, eadem lavacri sacramenta. Semel dixerim, una ecclesia 
sumus. Hence this book was written before the division in the church, when both con- 
tending parties still belonged to the same church. . Cap. 3 describes how the controversy 
sprung up from a peaceful living together, and how the parties gradually became more 
and more embittered: Tamen tolerabilius apud nos ad usque proxime: utrique con- 
suetudini communicabatur. Arbitrio permissa res erat, uf quaeque voluisset aut tegi 
aut prostituti, sicut et nubere: quod et ipsum neque cogitur, neque prohibetar. Contenta 
erat veritas pacisci cum consuetudine, ut tacite sub consuetudinis nomine frueretur se 
' vel ex parte. Sed quoniam coeperat agnitio proficere, ut per licentiam utriusque moris 
indicium melioris partis emergeret : statim ille adversarius' bonoram multoque institutorara 
opus suum fecit. Ambiunt virgines hominum, adversus virgines Dei, nuda plane fronte, 
in temerariam audaciam excitatae, et virgines videntur—Scandalizamur, inquiunt, quia 
aliae aliter incedunt: et malunt scandalizari quam provocari, etc. Soon after, a complete 
‘Separation took place, adv. Praxeam, c. 1: Et nos quidem postea agnitio paracleti, atque , 
 defensio disjunxit a Peychicis. . 


“CHAP. Tl. HERETICS. $50. MONTANISTS IN THE WEST. 195 


ged, being heated more and more by controversy (Spiritalinam ‘ 
contra Psychices).6 Others also followed him in the same 
spirit, till at length in the west also separate Montanist church- 
es were formed.® In the mean time, Montanism had become 
too deeply rooted in the western church; and now also the cir- 
 petbtarice operated in its favor (comp. p. 143) that its most 
zealous opponents, as Praxeas’ and the Roman presbyter Caius,* 
fell into other, serious errors. Thus, though from this time 
onward, Montanism was rejected in name even in the west- 
ern church, yet all Montanist elements were by no means. ex- 
pelled from that. church. Not only do we find remaining that 


> Accordingly he admits of 2 repentance after baptism, de Poenitentia, c. 7, ss: On the 
contrary, in his treatise de Pudicitia, c. 16, he writes: Nemo seducat seipsum, i. e., nemo 
praesumat vitiatim Deo redintegrari denuo posse :—delicta ista—post lavacrum irremissi- 
bilia, although, in c. 1, he confesses that he had formerly been of another opinion. In like 
‘manner, he allows of flight under persecution, ad Uxorem, i. cap. 3, but rejects the senti- 
ment in his lib. de Fuga in persecutione. Comp. Hieronymus in Catal. c. 53, de Tertall. 
Hic eum usque ad mediam aetatem presbyter Ecclesiae permansisset, invidia ‘postea et 
contumeliis clericorum Romanae Ecclesiae ad Montani dogma delapsus. From the his- 
torical connection already noticed, it may be seen how this change took place. Comp. J. 
G. Hoffmann Tertulliani, quae supersunt, omnia in Montanismo scripta videri. Vitemb. 
1738.4. Moshemii Dissertt. ad. hist. eccl. pertinent. vol. i. p. 54, note. J. A. Noesselt de 
vera aetate ac doctrina scriptorum quae supersunt Q. Sept. ‘Tertulliani dissertt. iii. Hal. 
1757, ss. 4 (reprinted in Ejusd. Tres commentationes ad hist. eccl. pertinentes. Halae. 
1817, 8, p. 1, ss.). Neander’s Antignosticus, Geist des Tertullianus, und Einleitung zu 
‘dessen Schriften. Berlin. 1825. 8. 

-® Augustinus, de Haer. c. 86, relates, that in his time the remnant of the Tertullianists ? 
in Carthage had returned to the catholic church. Hence the Montanists in Carthage 
were named after their leader. But they neither gave themselves this appellation, nor 
can it be inferred from the difference of names, as the Praedestinatus, Haer. 86, does, that 
the followers of Tertullian had formed a 2 gerd sect bapeeatent from the other Montanists. 
- 7 See below, § 69. 

8 A cotemporary of Zephyrinus according to Eusebius H. E. ii- 25. Fragments of his 
Sia2oyog mpog UpéxiXov (rHc Kata Spbyac alpécewe ixepuayodvta, Euseb. vi. 20), are 
found in Eusebius, ii. 25. iii. 28, 31. Comp. Photii Bibl.‘cod. 48, Routh Reliqu.: Saer. 
vol. ii. p. 1, ss. He attributed the doctrine of the millennium and the Apocalypse to 


\ Cerinthus. Euseb. iii. 28, comp. Liicke’s Hinleit: in d. Offenb. Joh: 8. 307. 


® It is a remarkable phenomenon that the Montanists, Perpetua-and Felicitas, who 


"were martyred in Carthage in 202, and their Acta. composed by a Montanist (see apud 


Ruinart, and in Minteri Primordia eccl. Afric. p. 227, ss.), were always highly valued in the 


African church. Cf. Augustini Sermo i-in natali Perpetuae et Félicitatis. The Montanist 


character of the acts is satisfactorily shown by Valesius (Acta SS. Perpet. et Felicit. 
Paris. 1664. 8, in the preface), Sam Basnage (Annales polit. Eccl. t. ii. p. 224, ss.), and by 
Th. Ittig (Diss. de haeresiarchis aevi apostol. et apostolico proximi. Lips. 1690. 4to, seet. 
ii. ©. 13, § 28). Even Jos. Aug. Orsi Diss. apolog. pro SS. Perpetuae et Felicitatis orthe- 
‘doxia adv. S$. Basnagium. Florent. 1728. 4, admits the Montanist principles of the author - 
of the Acta. Comp. particularly Act. cap. 1: Viderint, qui unam virtutem Spiritus anius 


' Sancti pro aetatibus judicent temporum: cum majora reputanda sint novitiora quaeque, 


at novissimiora secundum exuberationem gratiae in ultima saeculi spatia decreta. In 
novissimis enim diebus, dicit Dominus, effundam de Spiritu meo super omnem carnem, 
&e. (Joel i ii, je and Acts ii.17). Itaque-et nos, qui sicut prophetias, ita et visiones novas 


> 


196 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IIL—A.D. 193-324. 


strictness and tendency to lay stress on external rules of picty,?° 
but what is still more striking, even the writings of the Mon- 
_tanist Tertullian (about 220) were always valued very highly, 
and became the model of succeeding Latin ecclesiastical writers." 


- With the rejection of Montanism in Rome was probably con- 
nected Victor’s opposition to the Asiatic mode of vee 
easter (see p. 166)!” He called upon the bishops of Asia Mit 
; aa 


pariter repromissas et agnoscimus et honoramus, &c. Cap. 4. Pastor (Christus)—de caseo. 


quod mulgebat dedit mihi quasi buccellam, et ego accepi junctis manibus, et manducavi, et. 


aniversi circomstantes dixerunt Amen (cf. § 48, not. 22). The enigma, that those Montan- 
izing martyrs should have been constantly considered as members of the catholic church, 1s 
accounted for by supposing, that although at the time of their death the controversy between 
the two parties had begun, yet the separation had not taken place. But, undoubtedly, 
the Montanist spirit must have been fostered in the church by the high estimation in 
which such writings were held. 

10 For instance, the principle which was maintained in the African church til the time 


-of Cyprian (Tertull. de Pudic. c. 12), quod neque idololatriae neque sanguini pax ab Ec- 


clesiis redditur.. See above, note 4, below, § 71, Neander’s Antignosticus, 8. 262.. The 
Spanish church, which seems to have adopted the African as its model, expressed the 
same view in its greatest strictness as late as the Concil. Illiberitanum (about the year 
of our Lord 305)... This council ordains, with regard to those who have defiled themselves 
with such crimes as idolatry, magic, adultery, incest, placuit nec in fine communionem 
accipere (can. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, &c.—The error against which Cyprian, Ep. 63 ad Caecilium, 


‘inyeighs, quod aliquis existimet, sequendam esse quorundam consuetudinem, si qui in 


praeteritum in calice Dominico aquam solam offerendam putaverint, may also have sprung 


_ from Montanist asceticism. 


11. Hieron. Catal. c. 53: Numquam Cyprianum absque Tertulliani lectione unum diem 
praeterisse: ac sibi (notario) crebro dicere, Da magistrum, Tertullianum videlicet sig- 
nificans. _ His works, written from 197-211, are, 1. Against unbelievers, Apologeticus adv. 
gentes (written about 198, Moshemii de aetate apologetici Tert. comm. in his Dissertt. ad 
hist. eccl. pert. i. 1. Hefele Tertullian als Apologet, in the Tubingen theol. Quartalschr. 
1838,.i. 30), libri ii. ad nationes, de testimonio.animae, ad Scapulam, adv. Judaeos. 2. 
Against heretics, adv. Praxeam, adv. Marcionem:libb. v., adv. Valentinianos, de Praescrip- 
tione haereticorum, adv. Hermogenem. 3. Ascetic writings, the later of them expressly 
against the Psychics: ad Martyres, de Spectaculis, de Idololatria, de Oratione, de Baptismo, 
libb. ii. ad Uxorem—de Corona militis, libb. ii. de Cultu feminarum, de Fuga in persecu- 
tione, de Patentia, de Virginibus velandis, de Jejuniis, de Pudicitia, caet. Compare the 
works quoted in note 5. Bahr’s christ]. romische Theologie, 8.15. Mohler’s Patrologie, S. 
701.—Ed. Nic. Rigaltius. Paris. 1641. Rep. Ph. Priorius. Par. 1695. fol. J.S. Semler. 
Hal. 1770-76, 6 Bde. 8. E. F. Leopold, pp.iv. Lips. 1839-41. 8.. 

12 Some details relating to this matter are given, perhaps, in the Appendix ad Tertull. 
de Praescript. haeret. c. 53: Est praeterea his omnibus etiam Blastus accedens, qui 
latenter Judaismum vult introducere. Pascha.enim dicit non aliter custodiendum esse, 
nisi secundum legem Moysi quartadecima mensis. But this Blastus appeared in Rome 
(Euseb. y. 15), and Irenaeus wrote to him an émioroAy rept oxiouatoc (Euseb. v. 20). 
From Eusebius, it is clear that he did not entirely coincide in sentiment with the Gnos- 
ticizing Florinus; he appears to have been an Ultra Montanist.. Comp. Pacianus (bishop 
of Barcelona about 370) Epist. i. ad Sympron. in Gallandii Biblioth. vii. 257: Phryges plu- 
rimis nituntur auctoritatibus, nam puto et Graecus Blastus ipsorum est. The Asiatic 
Montanists have always retained the mode of celebrating easter which he advocates, 
See Anonymi Orat. vii. in Pascha in Chrysostomi opp. ed. Montfaucon. t. viii, App. p. 276 


. Schwegler’s Montanismus, S..251.. 





CHAP, H.—HERETICS. § 60. MONARCHIANS. 197 


(about 196) to adopt the custom of the west on this point, and 
after their refusal, when he had been assured of the assent of 
the bishops in Palestine, Pontus, Gaul, and Corinth, broke off 
church communion with them.'* — Several bishops, however, and 
Irenaeus himself among them, admonished him on account. of 
»». his too great haste ;'* peace was again restored, and both parties 
- continued undisturbed in the observance of their own customs — 


es ‘till the council of Nice.’ : 


§ 60. 
MONARCHIANS. 


Walch’s Ketzerhist. i. 537, ii. 3. Martini’s Gesch. des Degma v. d. Gottheit Christi in 
den vier ersten Jahrh. Rostock. Th. i. 1800. 8. S. 128, ff. FF. Schleiermacher tber den 
Gegensatz zwischen der Sabellianischen und der Athanasianischen Vorstellung von der 
Trinitat (in Schleiermacher'’s, De Wette’s, und Liicke’s theol. Zeitschrift. Heft 3, 
Berlin. 1822. S. 295, ff.) {translated into English with notes by Professor Stuart, in the 
American Biblical Repository for April, 1835.] Neander’s K..G. i. ii. 991. L. Lange’s ~ 
Gesch. u. Lehrbegriff d. Unitarier vor der nic. Synode (Beitrage zur altesten Kirchen- 
gesch. Bd. 2}. Leipzig. 1831. 8. ‘The same author's Lehre d. Unitarier, v. heil. 
Geiste, in Illgen’s Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol. iii. i. 65. Baur’s die christl. Lehre v. d. 
Dreieinigkeit u. Menschwerdung Gottes, i. 243. G. A. Meier's die Lehre v. d. Trinitat. 
(Hamb. u. Gotha. 1844) i. 74. 


The doctrine which regarded the divine in Christ as a per- 

sonality not distinct from the Father, had subsisted without 
opposition in. the second century alongside of the emanation- 
doctrine, since it was capable of being united with it in the 
confession which alone was important in relation to the faith, 


; _ 33 Euseb, H. ‘B. V. 23-25. 

_ 14 Euseb. v.24: AAA’ ob react ye Taig eroxdrarg TavT’ tpéoxeto. dvtemapaxehetovras 
O7Ta. abtG, Ta THe eipHyng Kali THO Mpb¢g Tove TANHoioY éEvdoEwe Kai dydrye dpoveiv 
gépovrat 62 Kai al TobiTwr dwval, TAnKTIKOTEpov KaBarTouévwy Tod Bikropoc. ‘Ev oi¢ 
kal 6 Eipnvaioc éx. mpoodrov Ov Hyeito KaTad THY TaArAiav ddeAddv érioteiAac,—TO ye 
nv Bixtopt mpoonkévtac, O¢ wy aroKértot ’repa rapaivet. Then follow fragments - 
from this letter.. Irenaeus expresses _his opinion of such disputes very plainly in the 
Fragm. iii. ed. Pfaff.: "Eragav of ’Améorodot, un deiv nude Kpivew tiva év Bpdoer kal &p - 
mécet [Kat év wéper] eoptig 7) veounviac } caBBdtrwv. Tlobev ody rabrar al wdyar; wodev 
‘Ta oxiouata; Eopracouer, GAN év coun kakiag Kal movnpiac, THY exxdnoiay Tov Oeov 

| dtappinrovtec, Kal Ta Extdc¢ Tnpodpev, iva ta Kpeitrova tHv TioTl Kal dyarnv anoBaAro- 

Mev: Tatrac ovv topra¢g Kai vgoreiag dnapéckety TO Kuply éx TOV TpodnTLKOV Aoyav 
hkoboauev. 

_ According to Athanasius de Byn. c. 5, if was one reason for summoning the council 
of Nice, that of dd The Svpiac, kat KiArkiac, kai Mecororapiac éyGhevov TEpt THY 
Sopthy, kal werd tv "lovdalwy éroiovy 7d doya. Cf. Euseb. de vita Const. iii: ¢. 5. 

* Bee,above § 52, note 12. ‘ 


’ 


. 


198 : FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. II.—A.D. 193-324. 


‘viz., that God is in Christ. It found a welcome reception 
particularly among the Antimontanists, who were averse to 
all sensuous ideas of Godhead ;? and on this very account 
was first combated by the zealous Montanist, Tertullian, in his 
treatise against Praxeas. In the controversies which extend 
from this time onward through the third century, and termin- _ 
ate in the ecclesiastical rejection of this doctrine, it developed ~ 
itself more definitely in different forms, which may be reduced 
to two great classes. “The one looked upon the divine in 
Christ as continually teaching and acting through him; the 
other looked upon it as acting only on the human person, so 
that according to the former, the entire agency of Christ was di- 
vine, derived from God; according to the latter, a human agency 
directed by God.* To the first class belonged Praxeas,* who, 


2 See § 48, notes 14,15. Neander’s K.G. i. ii. 1003, F. A. Heinichen de Alogis, Theodo- 
tianis, atque Artemonitis. Lips. 1829. 8. Epiphan. Haer. liv. c.1, calls Theodotus d7é- 
onacua tx the ’AAdyov alpécewe, Tie Gpvovpévyg TO KaTa "kadveny ebayyéhiov, Kai Tov év 

_ abt@ bv apxq Sta Bedv Aéyov. 

3 Novatianus de Trinitate, c. 30: Tam illi, qui Jesum Christam ipsum Deum patrem 
dicunt, quam etiam illi, qui hominem illum tantummodo esse _voluerunt, erroris, sui et 
perversitatis origines et causas inde rapuerunt, quia, cum animadverterent, scriptum esse, 
quod unus sit Deus, non aliter putaverunt, istam tenere se posse sententiam, nisi, aut 
hominem tantum Christum, aut certe Deum patrem putarent esse credendum, In like 
manner Origen. comm. in Joh. tom ii. c. 2, divides the evAaBovuévove dio dvayopeioat 
cove, kai Tapa TodTo mepenintovrac thevdéor kai doeséot déynacwv into two classes, Toe 
dpvovpévouc ldvéryra viod érépav napa Tiv Tod Tarpo¢ duodoyoovrac Oedy elvat Tov MEX pt 
évouaroc rap’ abtoic vidwxpocayopevouevor, 7 dpvovpévore thy Gedrnta Tob viod, TiOév~ 
tac dé abtov Tv idt6TyTa, Kai THY Odoiay KaTa TEpLypagHY TYYXGVOVCAY éTépar Tod TaTpOC. . 

* Tertullianus adv. Praxean, c. 1: Nam iste primus ex Asia hoe genus perversitatis. 
infulit homo.—Duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romae procuravit: prophetiam expulit, et 
haeresin intulit, Paracletum fugavit et patrem cracifixit—C. 20: Nam sicut in veteribus 
nihil aliud tenent quam : Ego deus et alius praeter me non est (Es. xlv. 5): itain Evangelio 
responsionem domini ad Philippum tuentur : Ego et pater unum sumus, et: Qui me viderit 
videt et patrem, et: Ego i in patre et pater in me (Joh. x. 30, xiv, 9,10). His tribus capi- 
tulis totum instramentum. utriusque testamenti volunt cedere.—C. 3; Itaque duos et tres 
jam jactitant.a nobis praedicari, se yero unius Dei cultores praesamunt.—Monarchiam, 
inquiunt, tenemus (c. 10, vanissimi isti Monarchiani).—C. 5: Duos unum volunt esse, ut 
idem pater et filius habeatur.—C. 2: Itaque post tempus pater natus, et pater passus : 
ipse Deus, dominus omnipotens, Jesus Christus praedicatur. On the other hand, c. 27, 
aeque in una persona utrumque distinguunt, patrem et filium, dicentes filium carnem esse, 

id est hominem, i. e., Jesum: patrem antem spritum, i. e., Deum, i. e. Christam; and c. 
. 29: Ergo, inquis, et nos eadem ratione dicentes patrem, qua vos filium, non blasphema- 
mus in Dominum Deum : non enim ex divina sed ex humana substantia mortuum dicimus. 
Baur (Lehre v. d. Dreieinigkeit, i. 246) and Meier (Lehre v. d. Trinitat, i. 77) are of opinion 
that Praxeas held the view that God connected himself immediately with the fiesh, with- 
out the medium of a rational human soul. But Tertullian, in express terms, explains 
carnem by hominem; and when Praxeas said, filium carnem esse, he could not possibly 
declare ‘a body animated by a mere yvyx7 to be filius Giiabt fonants Neander’s, Antignostis 
cus, 8. 481. 


: 


CHAP. IL—-HERERIOS, a MONARCHIANS. 199 


notwithstanding the opposition of: Tertullian, appears to have! > 
been unmolested in Rome on account of his doctrine. But 
Theodotus (6 otvted¢) who had come to Rome from Byzantium 
about the same time, was excluded from church-communion by 
Victor, when he declared Christ to be a mere man; and. his 
disciples (Theodotus 6 Tpamecirnc, Asclepiades, Natalius ‘Confes- 
sor) continued to exist in Rome for some time separated from 
the church.’ By means of these Theodotians, however, the 
Monarchian doctrine generally became so notorious, that Arte- 
mon (Artemas) under bishop Zephyrinus, although he did not 
agree with the Theodotians, was included in the same class 
with them, and attacked in various writings.’ Hence this the- 
ory was rendered suspicious every where, even in Asia where 
it took its rise; and Noetus was excommunicated in Smyrna 
(about 230) on account of his doctrine, which harmonized with 
that of Praxeas.*? On the other hand, Origen succeeded in 


5 Tertull. adv. Prax. 1. Denique caverat pristinum doctor de emendatione sua: et 
manet chirographuny apud Psychicos, apud quos tune gesta res est: exinde silentium. 
App. 1. de Praescr. 53: Post hos omnes etiam Praxeas quidam haeresin introduxit, quam 
Victorinus (Victor?) corroborare curavit. Cf. note 7. 

§ Comp. the extracts from the patinyanbus work against Artemon apud Euseb. v. 98, 
which designates Theodotus as the rpdrov eitévra wAdv dvOpwrov tov Xpiorév. Append. 
1. de Praescr. 53: Ex Spirita quidem Sancto natum, ex virgine, sed hominem solitarium 
atque nudum, nullo alio prae ceteris nisi sola justitiae auctoritate. Alter post hunc 
Theodotus (Trapezita) haereticus erupit, qui et ipse introduxit alteram sectam, et ipsum 
hominem Christum—inferiorem esse quam Melchisedech, eo quod dictum sit de Christo : 
Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech (Hebr. vii- 21). Nam illum 
Melchisedech praecipuae gratiae coelestem esse virtutem: eo, quod agat Christus pro 
hominibus, deprecator et advocatus ipsorum factus, Melchisedech facere pro coelestibus 
angelis atque virtutibus. (Melchisedeciani.) According to Theodoret (Haer. fab. comp, 2, 
5), even 6 cuixpoce AaBipivOoc accused them of corrupting the Holy Scriptures. 

7. From the oroidanpya xara tig Apréuwvog aipécea¢ extracts’ are given in Euseb. v. 
28, in which Artemon, without a clearer explanation of his doctrine, is compared with 
Theodotus. But the Artemonites asserted, 1. ¢., rod¢ uev mporépovg Gravtag Kal abrob¢ 
rove droorbAove wapetAndévar te Kal dedidayévar radta, & viv obras Aéyovor* Kat 
ternpjola tiv dAnbevay rob kypbyparog expt’ Tov Bikropoc ypdvev,—anwd 62. Tob 
dtadéyou aitod. Zedvpivov mapaxexdpaybar tHv GAjOccav. According to these extracts 
they must have propounded a doctrine different from that of Theodotus, who was excom- 
municated by Victor, and such a doctrine, too, as might be reconciled with the earlier 
doctrine of the Roman church still indefinitely expressed. In the same work, § 5, they 
are reproached with their dialectic tendency (od ri ai Oeiar Aéyovor ypadai (nrobvtec, GAX’ 
broiov oyjua cvAAoytopod cic THY THe GOeéryTOC ebpeOy ovoTaoLY, OLAOTOVWS doxovvrec), 


~ + and with their preference for Aristotle and Theophrastus. | Theodoret (Haer. fab.-comp, 


2, 5) gives’ extracts frem the opixpdg AaPpipivOoc, written against Theodotus and 
Artemon, which some falsely ascribe to Origen. When Nicephorus (Hist. .eccles. iv. 21) 
looks upon that orotdacua of Eusebius as identical with the AaGvpivOo¢ of Theodoret, 
and. when Photius (Cod. 48) makes Caius to be the author of both works they advance 
nothing but conjectures. ‘ 

@ Theodoret™ Haer: fab. bso, iii, 3, names Epigonus and Cleoménes as tindties prede- 


; 


200 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IIL—A.D. 193-324. 


drawing off Beryllus, bishop of Bostra, from. ‘that view, at a 
cesnail held in that place, in 244 a2 Sabellius, presbyter 
in Ptolemais (250-260) renewed it in a form still farther de- 
veloped.’® Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, endeavored in vain. 


cessors. His doctrine: "Eva gaciv élvar Oedv cat marépa, Tov Sdwv Onuovpyév" agava 


ev brav 20é2y, darvépevor 62 Avixa Gv BobAntat’ Kal Tov abtov dépatov eivar Kai dpepe- 


vov, kal yevvytoy kal ayévyntov: Gyéventov pév && apxic, yevvytov dé bte éx TapGévov 
yevonbjva. 70éAnce: analy Kal dOdvatov, kai méAwy ab cabytov Kai Ovytév. axabje 
yap or, ondi, Td Tov oTaVpod mdBog EeAjoac bréuewe. Todtov xai vidv dvoudfovar Kai 
matépa, Tp0¢ Tac Ypelac TODTO KaKEivo Karovpevov. He is opposed by Hippolytus contra 


‘haeresin Noéti [ed. Fabricii, t. ii. p. 5]; which is transcribed by Epiphanius Haer. 57, 


comp. note 9. : 

9 Euseb. vi. 33: His doctrine was: Tov cwrfpa kai Kipiov judy py Tpoddectavat kav’ 
iWiav obciac reptypagyy mpd Tie Bic GvOpdrove éxidnuiacg unde unv Cedtyra idiav exer, 
GAN éuroditevomévgy abTo povav thy matpixAv. Comp. Origenis fragm. ex libro in 
epist. ad Titum (from the apology of Pamphilus, Origenis Opp. ed Lommatzsch, v. 287): 
Sed et eos, qui hominem dicunt Dominum Jesum praecognitum et praedestinatum, qui 
ante adventum carnalem substantialiter et proprie non extiterit, sed quod homo natus 
Patris’solam in se habuerit deitatem, ne illos quidem sine periculo est ecclesiae numero 
sociari: sicut et illos, qui superstitiose magis, quam religiose, uti ne videantur duos deos 
dicere, neque rursum negare Salvatoris deitatem, unam eandemque subsistentiam Patris 


_ac Filii asseverant, i. e., duo quidem nomina secundum diversitatem causarum recipientem, 


7 


unam tamen jzéo7racvv subsistere, i. e., unam personam duobus nominibus subjacentem, 
que latine Patripassiani appellantur. The first opinion is that of Beryllus, the second that 
of Noetus. CO. Ullmanni de Beryllo Bostreno ejusque doctrina comm. Hamb. 1835. 4. (in 
Halle Christmas programm.) 

10 His doctrine aeconting to Basilius Epist. 210: Tov abrév Oedy Eva TO broketméve [TH 
brooracet, Ep. 214] Ovta, mpoc Tac ExdoToTe rapanintotcdc ypeiac peTapoppoupevov 
(uevacxnuatilouevoy, Ep. 235: mpoowrorolotpuevor, Ep. 214), viv wav d¢ watépa, viv dé 
a¢ vlov, viv 62 w¢ mveiua Gyov dtaréyecOar. Cf. Athanas.c. Arian. Or.iv. 11: Tév Oedv 
ClwnavTa pév avevépyntor, Aadodvra 62 icyberv). Theodoret. Haer. fab. comp. ii. 9, "Ev 
uév TH Tahal We ratépa vomoberioas, év 62 TH Kary Oe vidv évavOpwrhaat’ O¢ cvedpa 
d& Gyloy Toi¢ dmoctéioe éxidoitHoat.—(tpia mpdcwra). Pseudo-Greg, Thaumat. 7 
Kata pépoc miotic (in Ang. Maji Scriptt. vett. nova collectio, vii. 1, 171): "Amodetyouev 
Tov LaBéAArov 2éyovrTa Tov abrov ratépa, Tov abtov vidv- warépa sv yap Aéyet elvar 
Tov 2adoita, vidv d& Tov Adyov év TH matpi pévoyTa, kal Kara Katpoyv THE SyuLovpyias 
gavopevov, Exetta peta THY UTavTwVY TAnpwowy Tav TpaypaTer cic Gedv. dvatpéxovTa. 
Td aird d& nai mepi TOD wveduaTog Aéyer. Athanas. c. Arian. Or. iv..12: 'H povde 
mhatuvlcioa yéyove tpiac. Ib. 13: ZvoréAAccbat wai madw éxteivecOar tov Gedr, 
respecting this écraow¢ Kal ovoToA7, see the Clementinen und Philo above, § 58, note 13). 
Ib. 25: "Qorep duaipécete xaptopatov elai, To 62 abTé rvetya, obTw Kai 6 TaTHp 6 aiToc 
pév éori, rAaTbverat 08 el¢ vidv kal veda. Arii epist. ad Alexandrum Alex. ap. Epiphan. 
Haeres. 69: LaBérAcoc THY en awe vioraropa eimev. a pee N yes. contra 


dvaipeiy fev mEeipOvTae THY Sekorasiy Tov viov, abrov » dd. TOV So heaaipa &va évta dvoiv 
évouuer yepaipovta oldpuevol, vioradtopa mpocayopevovo.y). According to Epiphanius 
Haer. Ixii. 1, he compared the Godhead to the sun, évre wév év pid bxooTdcel, Tpsic d2 
éyovr Tac évepyeiac, namely, 7d tHe wepidepeiac oxjuA, Or TO eldog Taone THE VTOCTACEWS, 
Td dwrloTLK6y, and Td G4Arov. The Monas is the divine essence in itself, in its concealed 
state, which reveals itself in the trias, by interchangeably assuming three characters (xp6- 
ow7a) according to the nature of the revelations. These three zpééwza are 6 xatzjp, 6 vide,” 
7d xvedua. ‘The Logos is never called a second prosopon, but it is the Logos which beeame 
man, and, as such, took the name 6 uldé¢ (Athanas.c. Arian. Or. iv. 22: "Ev dpyi pév Adyov 


= 


CHAP. I—HERETICS. § 60. MONARCHIANS. . 201 


to refute him by personal interviews and letters, and in un- 
folding antagonist views, went so far as to make new and ob- 
jectionable assertions. Sabellians were found so late as the 
fourth century, in Rome and Mesopotamia. Still greater 
offense was given by Paul of Samosata, who, being at the 
same time bishop of Antioch (from 20U) and holding a civil 
office,'' exhibited a vanity and love of display hitherto unexam- 
pled in a Christian bishop. While he maintained with strict- 
ness the unity of God, he declared Jesus to be a man begotten 
by the Holy Spirit, on whom the Divine wisdom descending 
exerted its influence in a peculiar manner.’ ‘Three councils 


' GnAde: Sre 62 EvgvOpdrnce, réTe Gvoudobat vidv).. Hence Baur’s opinion (Dreieinigkeit, 
i. 261) is very probable that, in the sense of Sabellius, the Logos, in opposition to the _ 
Monas, is the manifested God generally, and that the three rodcw7a are to be considered 

as the changing forms of the Logos. If in some accounts the divine essence is styled 6 — 

rarnp generally, this may have been done by Sabellius, as well as; according to the Catholic 
doctrine, 6 mat#p may even designate the triune God ots:wdd¢. Finally, with regard to 
the question whether Sabellius considered the zpécwzov of the Son as a transitory appear- 
ance united to the earthly existence of Jesus (as Baur, 1. c. p. 266, thinks), or whether he 
believed that the person of Christ should cease to be only with the final consummation 
(according to Neander, i. ii. 1031), Gregory of Nyssa decides in favor of the former view, 
peyiorny tig doeBeiac éxxentoxact TAdvyy, oiduevor Oia ev Aecrorasiav dvOpwrivyav 
mpoeAnAvbévar Tov vidv ék rod matpd¢ mpookaipwe- adOi¢g dé weTa THY St6pBwowv Tov 
' dvOpariver TAnuucAnuatov dvaredvxéra évdivar Te Kai dvapepixOar TO Tarpl. 

11 He was a Ducenarius, Euseb. vii. 30. We must not here think of the Ducenarii 
‘whom Augustus created as the fourth decuria of knights, so called because they must 
have property to the amount of ducena sestertia (Sueton. Octav. c. 32), but the ducenarii 
procuratores, officers of a higher rank, who had so much yearly revenue, to whom Claudius 
granted the ornamenta consularia (Sueton. Claud. c. 24), and who still continued under 
Constantine (Cod. Justin. x. 19, 1). : 

12 His history is given in Euseb. vii. 27-30. Here also, cap. 30, is found the historical 
part of the circular letter of the last council of Antioch which was held against him. 
Doctrinal fragments of the same are given in Leontii Byz. contra Nestor. et Eutych. lib. 
iii. in the Greek original from a Bodleian MS. apud J. G. Ehrlich diss. de erroribus Pauli 
Samos. Lips. 1745. 4, p. 23. Among other original documents put together in the collec- 
tion of councils (apud Mansi, i. 1033), the Epist. Episcoporum ad Paulum is still the most 
_» trustworthy. The others are partly suspicious, partly spurious beyond a doubt; such as 

_ the epistle of Dionysius Alex. ad Paulum.—Fragments of Paul himself are found in the 
Contestatio ad Cleram Constantinop. in the Acts of the council of Ephesus apud Mansi v. 
-393, ap. Leontius, l.c. In Greek from a Paris MS. in J. G. Feuerlini diss. de haeresi 
- Pauli Sam. Gotting. 1741. 4, p. 10,.and in Justiniani Imp. lib. contra Monophysitas in’ 
Ang. Maji Nova collect. vii: i. 299: The texts contain much that agrees word for word, and’ 
may be supplemented and improved by each other. Besides fragments of Paul é« rép 
mpo¢ LaBravdv (or LaBivov) Adywv from a Clermont MS. in Feuerlini diss. p. 15, more 
correctly from a Vatican MS. in Ang. Maji Nova coll. vii. i. 68——-The doctrine of Paul was, 
according to Epiphanius Haer. Ixvi. 1: ’Ev be@ del 6vta Tov abtod Adyov, kai 7d Ivedpa 
abrod, Gorep év dvOpdrov xapdia 6 idio¢ Adyo¢: py elvat 62 Tov vidv éveTdararov, GAIA 
év abt@ OG (exioriunv dvurdorarov, Epist. Episc. ad Paul)—éA@évra dé tov Aéyov kai 
évoixqoavta tv "Inood dvOpérw byti (Epist. synodi Antioch. apud Leontius: ob ovyyeyer- 


202 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IIL—A.D. 193-324, 


were held in Antioch on his account. At the last of them 
_(269), he was convicted of heresy, by Malchion, his opinion 
having been hitherto disguised under ambiguous expressions, 
and deposed from his office.!* But his newly elected successor, 
bishop Domnus, could not take possession of his office until Ze- 
nobia, the patroness of Paul, had been defeated by Aurelian 
(272).° "The party of Paul (Samosateniani, Pauliani, Pauli- 
anistae) existed till the fourth century.’® 


jobar to ivOpwrivy thy codtav, O¢ jueic mLoTEbouEY, OlaLwWIGC, GAAA KaTa ToLbTHTA).— 
ob ddoxer 02 obTog Kata Tov NoéyTov Tov TaTépa TET OVOéval, GAAG nol, EADQY 6 Adyog 
évapynoe uovoc, kal GvpA0e mpdc Tov waTépa. Fragments of Paul’s writings: SuvpAdev 
6 Adyoe tH éx AaGid yeyevnuéveo, b¢ éotiv *Incot¢e Xprotoc 6 yevvybeic éx mvebuaroc 
aytiov’ Kai todtov péev HveyKer h Tapbévoc dvd Twvebuatog dyiov, éxeivov dé Tov Adyor 
éyévunoev 6 Oe0¢ avev mapbévov Kai dvev Tivdc obdevde bvToc, TARY TOD Oeod: Kalobtac - 
bréotyn 6 Adyoo.—AvOputro¢g yxpieTat, Adyog ob ypieTat'—Kai yap 6 Adyoc pEllwy Hv Tod 
Xpictod* Xpiord¢ yap did oogiac péyac éyéveto* 76 Gkiwpua tHe codiac un KabéAwper. 
Adyog piv yap avwber, "Inootc dé Xplotoc GvOpurog évTeVOev (Epist. Syn. Antioch. apud 
_Euseb. vii. 30, ’I. Xp. xatwOev). Mapia tov Adyov obx érexe—tov Adyov ixedéFato— 
étexev GvOpwrov jyuiv loov, xpeitrova dé kata wavTa, éxeidy &k mvEebpatoc cyiov.—('H 
codia) év mpogytare Hv, UdAAOY O& Kai gv Mwog: Kai év roAAvi¢ Kupiotc, udAAoY d2 Kal 
év Xpiore, O¢ év vad Geod. Ex Pauli sermonibus ad Sabinum: TO dyiw avetuate 
yptobeic mpoanyopet0n Xproroc, Tdoxwv Kata dvolv, OavpatovpyGv kata ydpiv- TO yap 
atpént@ tie yvaung dpowbeic TH Oe@, Kal peivac Kabapoe duaptiag Hvaby adto, Kai 
évnpy7on rorsiobas THY Tv Oavuatwr dvvaocteiar, && ov uiav aitO Kai THY abray Tpd¢ 
7H OeAjoes évépyetav Eyov dexOeic, AvTpatii¢ tod yévoug Kal owThp expmmdr oer. _— "Aywog 
Kat dixato¢ yéyovev jyav 6 owT7p, ayvt kai révm Tie Tod Tpomdropoc hav Kparioac 
dpaptiag* oc Katopbécag tiv dpernv, ovv7dOy TH de>, wiav Kat tiv. abtiy xpdc abrov 
_ BobAnotw.Kai évépyevav Taig TOV Gyabdy mpoKorai¢ bonnes: qv ad.aipetov-gvadéac, rd 
Ovoia KAnpodTat TO brép nav dvoua, oropyiic érabAov abt xapiobéy. My, Gavpaone, btt 
ulav peta Tod Oeod THY OéAnoty eiyev 6 OwTHp* Gorep yap | Pbolg piav TOY TOAAGY Kai 
THY abtny brdpyovoay gavepoi THY odotar, obTws } OxYéaic THe Gyan plav TOV TOAAGY 
Kal THY abtyv brapyovoay pavepoi THY odboiay, obTa¢ H OxXéoLG THE dyarne piav TOY TOA- 
Adv Kai Thy aitHy épyaerar OéAnawy Sid prac Kai THe abTHE Gavepovmérygs ebapEcTHaEuc. 
—Téa kpatciueva TH Abyy Tie dboewe odk Exovoty Exawov' Ta O2 cyéoEL dLAiac Kparob- 
‘neva brepaiveta, wig kal TH abTH yveun Kpatovmeva, Ord prac Kai Tie abtae évepyeiac 
BeBaotyeva, kal the Kar’ éxabsnow oidémote mavopévncg Kivioews. Kal? jv tO Oe 
ovvagbeic 6 carhp obdémore déyeTat weptouor eic Tove aidvac, wiav abto Kal THY abtiy 
tyov OéAnow Kai évépyerav cel Kivovuévny TH davepdcer TOV Gyaldv.—I. B. Schwab 
diss. de Pauli Samos. vita atque doctrina, Herbipoli. 1839. 8. Baur, i. 293. Neander, 
. i, ii, 1035. » Meier’s Lehre v. d. Trinitat, i. 115. 
13 It was established by the council: 7 eivar duootctov Tov vidv Tod Geos : T@ Tarpl, 
first mentioned in a letter of the Semiarians about 358, allowed by Athanasius de Synod. 
43. Hilarius de Synod. 86. Basilius Epist. 52.. On the other side, Prudentius Maranus 
diss. sur les Semiariens (in Voigtii bibl. hist. haeresiologicae, ft. ii. p. 159), Feuerlini diss. 
‘Dei filium patri esse duootccov, antiqui ecclesiae doctores in Conc. Ant. utrum negarint. 
Goetting. 1755.4. Déllinger’s K. G. i. i. 269.—Schleiermacher, 1. 'c. 387, note, thinks that 
Sabellius first used that expression. That it certainly occurs in the Sabellian controyesay 
is shown below, § 64, note 8. 
1 A remarkable command of Aurelian, Euseb. vii. 30, 9: Tovroe vetuat Tov oikov, oic 
av of kara rv Irariay Kal THY ‘Popaiwy ToALY Exioxorot Tod SéyuaToc éxicTéAAoLED. 
48 The most usual names for all those who asserted rév adrov elvar rarépa Kal vidy Kai 


CHAP. IlL—HERETICS. § 61: MANICHAEANS. 203 


§ 61. 


MANICHAEANS. 


SprcraL Sources—Archelai (bishop of Cascar about 278). Acta disputationis cum Manete 
(first in L.A. Zaccagnii collectaneis monumentor. vet. eccl: Graecae et Lat. Romae. 
1698. 4; then in J. A. Fabricii ed. opp. Hippolyti vol. ii. Gallandii bibl. Patr. vol. iii. 
Routh Heliqu. Sacr. vol. iv. p. 119, ss.).—Titi Bostrensis (about 360) libb. iv. contra 
Manicha¢os (in Hen. Canisii lection. antiquis, ed. Basnage, t. i.) —Augustini Hipponensis 
contra Fortunatum, contra Adamantum, contra Faustum libb. 33, de actis cum Felice 
Man. libb, 2, and other writings collected in the 8th vol. of the Benedictine edition. 

Worxs—Is de Beausobre Hist. crit. de Manichée et du Manicheisme. Amst. 1734, 39. 
2 Bd. 4. J. L. Moshemii comm. de rebus Christian. ante Constantin. M. p. 728, ss. 
Walch’s Ketzerhist. Th. 1. S. 685, ff J. S. Semler’s Einleitung zu Baumgarten’s Unter- 
such. Thedlogischer Streitigkeiten, Bd. 1. Halle. 1762. 4, S. 266, ff. K. A. Preih. v. 
Reichlin Meldegg die Theologie d. Magiers Manes und ihr Ursprung. Frankfsa. M. 
1825. 8. Manichaeorum indulgentias cum brevi totius Manichaeismi. adumbratione e 
fontibus cescripsit A. F. V. de Wegnern. Lips. 1827. 8.. Neander’s Kirchengesch. i 
ii. 824 (Canp. my review of: the last three works in the theol. Studien u. Kritiken, Bd 
i. Heft 3..$.599, #.). Das manich. Religionssystem nach den Quellen neu untersucht ~ 
u. entwickelt von Dr. F. Chr. Baur, Tiibingen. 1831. 8. (Comp. Scheckenburger’s review 
in the Theol, Stud. u. Krit. 1833. iii. 875). 


, 


Since the Syrian Gnosis, which had spread even to Persia,” 
presented s0 many points of union with the doctrine of Zoroas- 
ter,® it is not surprising that the Persian Gnostics should have 
been led to connect their Christianity still more closely with the 
Zend doctrine.* After the spiritual aspect of the religion of Zo- 
roaster had declined under the Arsacidae, and become a rude 
dualism and mere ceremonial worship, the Sassanides (from 
227) did every thing in their power to restore its ancient splen- 
dor. In the assemblies of the Magi a supreme principle was 
acknowledged (Zeruane akerene) ; and, on the other hand, un- 
qualified dualism with its adherents (Magwsaeans, al thanavia) 
condemned. These commotions in the bosom of Parsism prob- 


. _Gytov mvedua werd, according to Athanas. de Synodis, c. 7, Iatporacovavol ev raph 


‘Papaioic, LaBedAtavot 62 rap’ juiv. os 

1 Fragments of the Greek original are given by Epiphanius (Haer. 66). Respecting » 
) their spuriousness, tee Beausobre, i. p. 129, ff. Yet even by Jerome they were regarded 
as authentic (Catal. o. 72).° Cf. Fabricii bibl. Graeca ed. Harles, vol. vii. p. 275, ss. 
* Comp. § 39, note 5, § 46, Sim. de Vries de orig. et progressu Relig. Christ. in vet. Per- 
sarum regno, in Barkey Museum Haganum, t. iii. p. 288, ss. : 
3 Die Theologie ceca nach dem Zend-Avesta v. A. sy i in Ilgen’s Zeitschr, f 
Hist. Theol. Vili. i. i 

* In. opposition . ani! who in the work already quoted, p. 433, assumes Buddhism as 
a third element, and with whom even Neander, 1. c. second edition, p. 827, agrees, see 
_ the apposite anata secs a et in the theolog. Studien u. Kritiken. 1833, iii, 896 


2 


204 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I1.—A.D. 193-324. 


ably gave rise to the attempt of Manes to unite Christianity 
with the system of these Magusaeans.° Eastern and western 
writers differ from one another not only in the name of this 
sect-founder (Mani—Cubricus, Manes, Manichaeus), but also 
in their accounts of him. They agree only in this, that he 
was hated by the Magi, persecuted by the Persian kings, com- 
_ pelled to flee, and lastly, at the command of a king (according 
’ to the orientals, Baharam or Bararanes I., from 272—275) bar- 
barously put to death, as a corrupter of-religion,in a fort or cas- 
tle (according to the "oriental writers, Dascarrah, econ to 


~~, the occidental, Arabion). 


His system of religion rests on the assumption of two ever- 
lasting kingdoms coexisting and bordering on each other, the 
kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness, the former 
under the dation of God, the latter under the demon or Hyle. 
After the borders had been broken through by a war between 
the two kingdoms, and the material of light had been mixed 
with the material of darkness, God caused the world to be form- 
ed by the living spirit (Sav mveipa, spiritus vivens) out of this 
- mixed material, in order that by degrees the material of light 
here captured (anima and Jesus patibilis) might be again sepa- 
rated and the old boundaries restered. Two exalted natures of 
light, Christ (wom Mani calls in preference dextra luminis, 
Tov aidiov gwri¢ vide, &e.) and the Holy — Spirit, the former 
dwelling i in the sun and moon (naves), the latter in the air, con- 
duct this process of bringing back the material of light; while 
the demon and the evil spirits, fettered to the stars, endeavor to 
-hinder them. In every man there dwells an evil soul besides 
the soul of light ;’ and it is his commission to sécure to the 
latter the sway over the former, to unite with it as many as 


5 Thom. Hyde Historia religionis vett. Persaram et Parthoram et Medorum. Oxon. 
1700 (new ed. Lond. 1760), 4. p. 280, ff. Abbé Foucher on the system of Manes, in J. F. 
Kleuker’s appendix to the Zend-Avesta, Bd. i. Th. 2, S. 186, ff. Silv. de Sacy Mémoires 
sur diverses antiquités'de la Perse. Paris. 1793. 4. p. 52. 

6 The orientals are given in Herbelot Bibliothéque orientale. Peris. 1697. fol. (new 
edition, Haag. 1777, 78. 3. T. in 4.) Art. Mani. The western have all borrowed from 
Archelai Act. disput. cum Manete. 

7 An old Persian notion: so says the Persian Araspas i in Xenoph. Gyrop. vi. c. 1, § 21: 
Ato yap caddc yw Wuydc.—od yap 67 wia ye obca Gua cyabh ré écti Kai Kaxy, od0 Gua 
KadOv Te Kai aicypOv Epywr épd, Kai TavTa dua BobAeTai Te kai ob Bobdetat mpadrreww- 
4222 Sniovézi dbo éotov Woy, Kai bray wey h-dyaby Kpaty, Ta KaAGd TpaTreTaL’ Grav 
62 7 Tovnpa, 7a aloxpa éxiyerpetrat. On the later Persians, see Kleuker’s Appendix to 
the Zend- rene Bd 1, Th. 1, &. 261. 


> 


CHAP. IL—HERETICS. »§ 61. MANICHAEANS. | 205 


5 


possible of the elements of light, which are scattered in nature, — 
especially in certain plants, and thus to free it from the fetters 
of the evil principle, and prepare the way for its return to the 
kingdom of light.* After men had long been led-astray by the 
demon) y means of false religions (Judaism and Heathenism), 
Christ descended from the sun to earth in the»appearance of a 
body, to lead them to the worship of the true God, and by his 
doctrine to help the souls of light in their struggles for liberty. 
But his instructions were not fully understobd even by the apos- 
tles, and after his death were still’ more falsified by the Chris- 
tians.° Hence he promised a still greater apostle, the tapaxdn- 
toc, who should separate all that was false, and announce the 
truth in perfection and purity.’ This person appeared in Mant. © 
The Manichaeans accordingly rejected entirely the Old 'Testa- 
ment.!! All that they thought they could make use of in favor 


8 Manes in Epist. ad filiam Menoch fin Augustini Op. imperf. lib. iii. c. 172): Sicut 
animae gignuntur animabus, itaque figmentum corporis a corporis natura digeritur. Quod 
ergo nascitur de carne, caro est, et quod de spiritu, spiritus est: spiritam autem animam 
intellige. —(C. 177.) Sive enim bonum geramus, non est carnis—sive malum geramus, non 
est animae. Hence the Manichaeans had other definitions of freedom and sin. Fortunatus 
Disp. ii. cum Augustino, c. 21: Id est peccatum animae, si post commonitionem Salvatoris 
nostri et sanam doctrinam ejus a contraria natura et inimica sui stirpe se non segregaverit 
anima.. Secundinus Epist. ad Augustin, § 2: (Anima) carnis commixtione ducitur, non 
propria voluntate. At si, cum se ipsum cognoverit, consentiat malo, et non se armet 
contra inimicum, voluntate sua peccavit. Quam se iteruam pudeat errasse, paratum 
inveniet misericordiarum auctorem. Non enim punitur, quia peccavit, sed quia de peccato 
non doluit. 

9% Contemptuously called TadsAaios by Manes in Epist, ad Oddam (in Fabricii Bibl 
Graeca, vol. v. p. 285). 

10-Mani begins his Hpistola fundamenti (ap. Augustinum contra epist. Manichaei, c. 5) 
thus: Manichaeus Apostolus Jesu Christi providentia Dei patris. Haec sunt salubria 
verba de perenni et vivo fonte, quae qui audierit et eisdem primum crediderit, deinde 
quae insinuant custodierit, numquam erit morti obnoxius, verum aeterna et gloriosa vita 


-fruetur, caet—The Manichaean Felix (Augustin. de Act. cum Felice, i. 9): Paulus in 
' altera epistola dicit: ‘Ex parte scimus et ex parte prophetamus: cum venerit autem ~ 


quod perfectum est, abolebuntur ea, quae ex parte dicta sunt.’”’ (1 Cor. xiii. 9,10.) Nos . 
audientes Paulum hoc dicere, venit Manichaeus cum praedicatione sua et suscepimus 


» eum secundum quod Christus dixit: ‘ Mitto vobis spiritum sanctum.”—Et quia venit 
' Manichaeus, et per suam praedicationem docuit nos initium, medium et finem: docuit nos 


de fabrica mundi, quare facta est; et unde facta est, et qui fecerunt: docuit nos, quare’ 


_ dies et quare nox: docuit nos de cursu solis et lunae: quia hoc in Paulo non audivimus, 


nec in caeterorum Apostoloram scripturis : hoc credimus, quia ipse est Paracletus. Itaque 


“illad iteram dico, quod superius dixi: si audiero in altera scriptura, ubi Paracletus loquitur, 


de quo voluero interrogare, et docueris me, credo et renuntio.— Without doubt, Manes 
made a distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Paraclete, but was misunderstood by 
the Catholics (for example Euseb. H. E.7, 31: Tord wév tov Iapdxanror kai on TO 
dywov abricg gavtév dvaxnpitrwr). 

“} Baur’s Manich. Religionssystem, 8.358. IF. Trechsel iiber den Kanon, die Kritik u 
Exegese d. Satara Bern. 1832. 8. 8. 11. 


Rho : ee 





206 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. UL—A.D. 193-324. > 


: > 
of their doctrine belonging to the canonical and apocryphal writ- 
ings of the New Testament, was regarded by them as a remnant 
of the original truth. Whatever was opposed to their views 
‘was supposed to be error which had been subsequently mixed 
up with the truth. Thus, they appealed, where it served 
their purpose, to the canonical gospels'* and the epistles of St. — 
‘Paul as well as to apocryphal gospels without entirely adopting 
these writings," but at the same time, without attempting to - 
‘purge them from error, as Marcion did. . Since they found least 
truth in the history of the apostles written by Luke, they con- 
fronted this canonical production with another, under the name 
of Lucius or Leucius.* All these writings could not be. canon- 
_tcal in their estimation, meaning by that term, absolutely 

authoritative. The works ef Mani alone were canonical. 
Their morality had for its object to procure for the good the 


12 Baur, S. 378. Trechsel, 8.27. Faustus Manich. (ap. Augustin c. Faust. xxxii. 6): 
Nobis Paracletus, ex novo Testamento Saneaie, perinde docet, quid accipere ex eodem 
debeamus, et quid repudiare. 

13 Faustus (ap. Augustin. c, Faust. xxxiii. 3): Nec ab ipso (Christo), haec (Evangelia) 
sunt, nec ab ejus apostolis scripta: sed multo post eorum assumptionem a nescio quibus, © 
et ipsis inter se non concordantibus Semijudaeis per famas opinionesque comperta sunt: 
qui tamen omnia eadem in apostolorum Domini conferentes nomina, vel eorum, qui secuti ’ 
apostolos viderentur errores ac mendacia sua secundum eos'se scripsisse mentiti sunt. 

14 Cyrillus Hieros. Catech. iv. and vi: pronounces the gospel of Thomas to be a Mani- 
chaean production, and many have followed him; but the Manicheans may have quoted 
it for particular sentiments, without entirely adopting it (see Thilo Cod. apocr. N. T. Pro 
leg. p. lxxx.). The gospel of Philip was of Gnostic origin, which document is said to have 
been used also by the Manichaeans, Trechsel, 8..59.—A catalogue of such writings, which 
in part at least may have been first used by the later Manichaeans, may be found in Tim- 
otheus (presb. Constantinop. about 511) 1. de iis qui ad ecclesiam accedunt, in J. Meursii 
Varia divina. Lugd.Bat. 1619. 4. p. 117. 

15 Leucii Acta Aposfoloram (Augustin. de-Actis.c. Felice, ii. 6): Ai rév *Amoaréhev 
weptodot (Photius: Bibl..cod. 114), written by Leucius Charinus, containing the Ipdtece 
Tlérpov, "lwdvvov, "Avdpéov, Oana, IlatAov. Several of them exist in MS. There have 

‘been published Acta S. Thomae Apostoli ed. J. C. Thilo. Lips. 1823. 8. Comp. the Pro- 
1egomena to this work, p. lx. Respecting the person of Leucius, the most contradictory 
accounts are given (Trechsel, 8. 61). Itis highly probable that-he is a mythic collective 
for all heretical histories: of the apostles, and that the name was modeled after that of 
Luke. 

16 BiBhoe TOV wvoTnpioy (Syriac in‘ 22 divisions. Fragments apud Titus Bostrensis and 
Epiphan. Haer. lxvi. 14), B. rév xedadaiar, 7d Gév ebayyédcov (Oriental. Erteng ?), 6 @- 
caupo¢ Ti¢ Gwe (Fragments in Augustin. de Natura boni, 44, de Act. cum Felice, i. 14, 
and in Evodius de Fide). These four works Manes is said to have appropriated from the 

_ remains of Scythianus. Besides these there are several letters of his: Epist. fundamenti 

(Augustini lib. contra epist. Manichaei, quam vocant fundamenti), Ep. ad filiam Menoch 

(Fragments in August. Opus imperfect. lib. iii.). Fragments of the letters ad Zebenam, 

ad Scythianum, ad Odan, ad Cudarum in Fabricii Bibl. Graeca, vol. v. p. 284, ff ed. nov. 

vol. viii. p.315, also scattered here and there in Ang: Maji Scriptt. vett. nova coll. vii. i. 

17, 69, 70, 27, 304, . 


Is 





CHAP, IL+HERETICS. § 61. MANICHABANS. 207 


dominion over the bad soul, by a rigid self-denial. It was di- 
vided into the signaculum oris, sign. manus, and sign. sinus. 
It imposed on the baptized members (electi, perfecti, téAesor) so 
great privations, that most adherents of the sect remained cate- 
chumens (auditores) as long as possible, for the sake of being 
released from the observance of the most stringent laws. - The 
worship of the Manichaeans was very simple. They celebrated 
Sunday by fasting; the day of Mani’s death by a yearly festival 
(Giza). Baptism, which was administered with oil,!’ and the 
Lord’s Supper belonged to the secret worship of the electi. 

Mani himself sent out twelve apostles to propagate his. doc- 
trine, in like manner afterward electi were constantly dispatch- 
ed for this purpose. - Hence the party remained in very close 
union. At the head of them was one person, to whom 12 ma- 
gistri immediately, and next the 72 bishops of the churches, were 
subordinate. Many followers were attracted by the historical 
form in which Mani endeavored to explain so much that is in- 
comprehensible,’* and by the asceticism of his adherents. Ac- 
cordingly, the Manichaeans spread, soon after the death of their 
founder, into. proconsular Africa, and even further in the Roman 
dominions, although they were opposed with vehemence, not only. 
by the catholic church, but were also persecuted by heathen em- 
perors,’® who enacted bloody laws against them as a sect derived 
from the hostile Persians. 


17 Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, i i. iii. 620. Baur, 8. 277. 

18 ‘Augustinus de Utilitate credendi, c..1. (Opp. ed. Bened. viii. 34) : Nosti enim, Hon- 
orate, non aliam ob causam nos in tales homines incidisse, nisi quod se dicebant, terribili 
“auctoritate separata, mira et simplici ratione eos, qui se audire vellent, introductaros ad 
, Deum, et errore omni liberaturos; etc. 

29 Diocletian’s edict to Julian, proconsul of Africa, against the Manichaeans, dat. prid. ~, 
Kal. April. (287 7) Alexandriae, mentioned also by Ambrosiaster ad. 2 Tim. iii. 7, and pre- 
‘served in the Lex Deis. Mosaicarum et Romanarum legum collatio (best edition by F. 
“Blume. Bonnae. 1833. 8) tit. xv. c/ 3, and in the Codicis Gregoriani fragmentis (ed. G. 
Haenel. Bonnae. 1837. 4. p. 44) :—De quibus Solertia tua Serenitati nostrae retulit Mani- _ 
chaeis, audivimus eos nuperrime, veluti nova inopinata prodigia, ii hunc mundum de Per- ~ 
' sica, adversaria nobis gente, progressa vel orta esse, et multa facinora ibi committere : 
populos namque quietos turbare, nec non et civitatibus maxima detrimenta inserere : et 
verendum est, ne forte, ut fieri adsolet, accedenti tempore conentur (per) excecrandas con- 
suetudines et scaevas leges Persarum innocentioris naturae bomines, Romanam gentem 
modestam atque tranquillam, et universum orbem nostrum velygi venenis suis malevolis 
inficere —Jubemus namque, auctores quidem ac principes una cum abominandis scripturis 
-eorum severiori poeénae subjici, ita ut flammeis ignibus exurantur; consentaneos vero et 
“usque adéo contentiosos capite puniri praecipimus, et eorum bona fisco nostro vindicari 
sancimus. Siqui sane etiam honorati, aut cujuslibet dignitatis, vel majoris, personae. ad 
hance inanditam et ees, atque per omnia infamem sectam, vel ad doctrinam Persarum 


208° FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IIL—A.D. 193-384 


THIRD CHAPTER. 
THEOLOGY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 
I. IN THE EAST. 

§ 62. 

ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL. 


J. G. Michaelis de Scholae Alexandrinae sic dictae catecheticae origine, progressu ac 


praecipuis doctoribus (Symbolae literariae. i. iii. 195. Bremae. 1745)... J, F. Hilscher de: 


Schola Alexandrina. Lips. 1776.4. H.E.F. Guerike de Schola, quae Alexandriae 

floruit, comm. hist. et theol. (Pp. ii. Halis Sax. 1824, 25. 8.) Rarsprior: de externa 

Scholae Historia. ©. F.G.Hasselbach de Schola, quae Alexandriae floruit, catechetica. 

Part. i. A Stettin School-programm of the year 1826. Neander’s Kirehengesch. i. ii. 
- 909, ff, Redepenning’s Origenes, i. 57. 


In the present period, Christian theology was cultivated espe- 
cially at Alexandria, at that time the seat of all the sciences, 
where the catholic ‘teachers, even by their external relations to 
the heathen and Gnostics, were compelled to enter philosophic- 
ally into the doctrines of Christianity. Here began to be very 
-.soon felt the necessity of an instruction beyond the usual one 
given to catechumens, as well for the philosophical proselytes as 
for those who were to become teachers. After many persons 


thirsting for knowledge. had been in this way collected about 


some distinguished man, the institution of the Alexandrian cate- 
chetical school attached itself to those apa individual efforts 


se transtulerunt, eorum patrimonia fisco nostro adsociari facies: ipsos quoque foenensibus 
vel_proconensibus metallis dari. Ut igitur stirpitus amputari mala haec nequitia de saecu- 
lo beatissimo nostro possit, Devotio tua jussis ac statutis Tranquillitatis Nostrae maturius, 
obsecundare (festinet). Explanations of this passage may be found in Bynkershoek de 
Relig. peregrina, diss. ii. (Opuse. ii. 207.) Cannegieter ad Fragm. vet. jurisprud. c. 24. 

 Origenes ap. Eusebium, vi. 19, 5. 

2 Euseb. v. 10 (speaking of the time of Commodus) : ‘Hyeiro 62 rnvikaira Tie TOV TOTS 
aité60t (kar "AAckavdpetay) dcatpiBye-dvyp Kata waLdeiav évdogoraroc, dvouca aito Iép- 
raivog” €¢ dpyaiov EOove didacKareiou THv iepGv Adywv wap’ abroi¢ cvveotdroe, 6 Kai ei¢ 
pac mapateiverat, kal*mpo¢ Tay év Ady Kai TH] xepi TA Dela oxovi_ duvaTdv cvyKpo- 
teicbat raperafoauev. This’ account is given more fully by Jerome, in Catal. 36: Pantae- 
nus, stoicae sectae philosophus, juxta quandam veterem in Alexandria consuetudinem, ubi 
a Marco Evangelista semper ecclesiastici fuere doctores, tantae pradentiae et eruditionis 
tam in Scripturis diviais, quam in saeculari literatura fuit, ut in Indiam quoque—mittere- 


ee 


ad 


‘* 
CHAP. III—CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. I. §62 ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL 209 


shortly before the present period. ‘The height of its prosperity 
falls under this very time, and its distinguished teachers («arn. 
xjoewv magistri, Hieron. Cat. c. 38), Pantaenus, Clemens 
Alexandrinus, Origenes, Heraclas, Dionysius,’ (Pierius and 
Theognostus ?) are the only persons by whom Christian theology 
was now advanced. ‘The Alexandrian school took its peculiar 
direction from its very first teachers. Pantaenus, a Stoic 
philosopher, is otherwise unknown; and we can only judge of 
him by his pupil Titus Flavius Clemens. ‘The peculiarity 
of the Alexandrian school is already stamped on the writings of 
the latter, who was president of the catechetical institution from 
about 191 till 202, then fled in the persecution raised by Sev- 

s, and probably returned to Alexandria (f+ about 220). But 
the characteristics of the school were completely developed .and 
matured by the great Origen (6 xadnévrepos, 6 ddaydvroc) the son 
of the martyr Leonides, who died in 202. When a youth of 
eighteen he was a catechist at Alexandria,’ and procured for 


tur. Names: 10 ti¢ Katnyncewc. didackadeiov (Euseb. H. E. vi. 3, 1, vi. 26) 7d. lepov 
diwWackaieiov Tov lepdv pabnudtwy (Sozom. H. E. iii. 15), ecclesiastica schola (Hieron. 
Cat. c. 38), schola carnyj#oeur (ibid. c. 69). 

3 This is the order according to Eusebius and others. On the other hand, Philippi Sid- 
- etae (about 420) fragm. in Henr. Dodwelli dissertatt. in Irenaeum. Oxon. 1689. 8. p. 490, 
ss.: Athenagoras, Pantaenus, Origenes, Heraclas, Dionysius, Clemens, Pierius, Theognos- 
tus, Serapion, Petrus Martyr, Macarius moA:tixéc, Didymus, Rhodon. Even Socrates 
Hist. eccl. vi. c. 27, finds fault with the Christian history of Philip 672 tobe ypdvove rij¢ ioro- 
piag ovyyxéet. 

* Writings: Adyoc mpotpentixdg Tpdc¢ “EAAnvac—raidaywyé¢ 3 books—otpdéyara or 
otpopareic libb. viii. (cf. Photii. Cod. cx. Aéyoc, ti¢ 6 cwhéuevog tAobcto¢ (c. comment. C. 
Segaar. Traj, ad Rh. 1816. 8). With others of his writings have been also unfortunately 
lost the ixorumécecc in 8 books, in which later orthodoxy found many dceBeic kai uvbdderg 
Adyouc (See Photius Cod. 109). The fragments of it have been collected by Potter in his 
edition of Clement, vol. ii. p. 1006, ss. A small portion of it, Remarks on the Catholic epis- 
tles, has been preserved in a Latin translation under the title of Adumbrationes Cleni. 
Alex. (best ed. Potter, 1.c.) ; probably the same of which Cassiodorus de Institut. div. lit. 
c. 8, says, that he had prepared it ut exclusis quibusdam offendiculis purificata doctrina 
ejus securior possit hauriri. Comp. Liicke’s Comm. tiber die Schriften Johannis, 2te Auf 
lage, iii. 77. Perhaps also the éx rév mxpodntixdy (prophetic interpretations) é«Aoyar 
apud Potter, p. 989, are remains ofghe Hypotyposes—Opp. omnia ed. J. Potter. Oxon. 
1715. 2 voll. fol. BR. Klotz. Lips. 1831-34. 4 voll. 8—P. Hofstede De Groot Disp. de 
Clemente Alex. Groningae. 1826.8. v.Cdlln’s article on Clemens in Ersch and Gruber’s 
Encyclop. Th. 18. S. 4, ff. A. F. Daehne de yvicer Clementis Alex. Lips. 1831. 8. 
Bedeutung des Alex. Clemens f. d. Entstehung d. christ]. Theologie, by D. Kling, in the 
theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1841. iv. 857. Ritter’s Gesch. d. christl. Philos. i.421.. Redepenning’s 
Origenes, i-70. [See the article on Clement in Smith’s Dict. of Biography and Mythology.] 

5 His self mutilation, related by Eusebius, vi. 2, is questidfied by Schnitzer (Origenes 
tiber die Grundlebren, Einleit. 8. xxxiii.).. On the other side see Engelbardt in the theol. 
Stud. u. Kritik. for 1838, i. 157, and Redepenning’s Origines, i i. 202.—According to Porphyry 
Origen was also a hearer of Ammonius Saccas (Euseb. vi. 19), which ‘ppests to be con 


VOL. 1—14 Ae 


210 FIRST PERJOD.—DIV. Iil.—A.D. 193-324. 


himself a great reputation even in other places. But he dis- 
pleased his bishop, Demetrius. by being consecrated presbyter at 
Caesarea (228), went thither in 231, and was then excluded from 
-communion with the church by Demetrius on account of his pe- 
culiar opinions. The churches in Palestine, Arabia, and Achaia, 
paid no regard, however, to this excommunication; and Origen not 
only continued to fill the office of presbyter in Caesarea, but like- 
wise gave instruction in the sciences. Besides this, the revision 
of the corrupted Septuagint (7é éSa7Aa@) occupied him for twenty-_ 
eight years. During this time he was twice invited to synods 
which were held in Arabia against heretics; and both times he 
succeeded in convincing them of their errors (Berylius of Bostra, 
244—Arabici, 248). So distinguished a teacher of Christianity 
could not be overlooked in persecutions. He escaped from 
Maximin the Thracian by fleeing to his friend Firmilian, 
bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. But in the Decian persecu- 
tion he suffered so much ill usage in Tyre, that he died there 
some years after ({ 254).° 


firmed by himself in a fragment there given. In opposition to Ritter (Gesch. d. Philos. iv. 
576, Gesch. d. christl. Phil. i. 467), who denies it, see Redepenning, i. 230, and L.. Kriger 
uber das Verhaltniss d. Orig. zu Amm. Sakkas, in Illgen’s Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol. 1843, i. 
46.—That in addition to the famous Origen, there was a cotemporary heathen philosopher 
of the same name is proved, in opposition to many writers, by Redepenning, i. 421, and 
Kriger, S. 51. 
6 On Origen’s life, theology, and writings, see Pet. Dan. Huetii Origeniana libb. iii., 
- prefixed to his edition of the commentaries, and in de la Rue, vol. iv. App. p.79, ss. Ceil- 
lier Histoire des auteurs sacrés et eccles. t. ii. p. 584, ss. Origenes, eine Darstellung s. 
Lebens u. s. Lehre v. C. R. Redepenning, Abth. 1. Bonn. 1841. A development of his 
doctrine alone in: Origenes, ein Beitrag zur Dogmengeschichte der dritten Jahrhundert. 
von G. Thomasius Niirnberg. 1837. Writings: 1, exegeticai, the model and source for 
all succeeding Greek commentators: onuetdcetc, scholia—rduo1, commentarii—éyAia. 
(On these three kinds of explanatory writings, see Rufinus Invectiv. in Hieronym. lib. ii. 
in Hieronym. Opp. ed. Martianay, t. iv. P. ii. p. 426. On the homilies, Tzschirneri Opusc. 
academ. p. 206, ss.) Origenes in Sacr. script. commentaria, quaecunque graece reperiri 
potuerunt, éd. P. D. Huetius, 2 voll. Rothomagi. 1668, also Paris. 1679, and Coloniae 
(Frankfart). 1685. fol. Most ofthe expository writings are extant only in the Latin trans- 
lations of Rufinus and Jerome. 2, card KéAcov réuor 7’ (ed. G. Spencer, Cantabrig. 165s. 
4). 3, api dpyGv lib. iv. only fragments of the Greek are extant, but Rufinus’s Latin ver- 
sion is entire (Orig. de Principiis, ed. et annotatione instruxit E.R. Redepenning. Lips. 
1836. 8). Origenes tiber die Grundlehrender Glaubenswissenschaft Wiederherstellungsver- 
such von Dr. K. F. Schnitzer. Stuttgart. 1835.8. Cf. Rufini praef.: Interpretando sequor 
regulam praedecessorum, et ejus praecipui viri, cujus superius fecimus mentionem (Hier- 
onymi), qui cum ultra Ixx. libellos Origenis—transtulisset in Latinum, in quibus cum ali- 
quanta offendicula inveniantur in Graeco, ita elimavit omnia interpretando, atque purgavit, 
ut nihil in/illis, quod a fide Rostra discrepit, latinus lector inveniat. Hieron. adv. Rufin. lib. 
i. ed. Martian. t. iv. P. ii. p. 355. Concerning this translation of Rufinus : Quum—contu- 
lissem cum Graeco, illico animadverti, quae Origenes de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto 
impie dixerat, et quae romanae aures ferre non poterant, in meliorem partem ab interprete 


> 


et 


‘ 


CHAP. III—CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. f. § 63. ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL. 211 


‘ 


§ 63. 


(CONTINUATION).—REPRESENTATION OF THE ALEXANDRIAN 
THEOLOGY, PARTICULARLY THAT OF ORIGEN. 


Guerike de Schola Alex. catech. (s. notice prefixed to § 62). Pars posterior: de Scholae 
Alex. cateeheticae theologia. Halis. 1825, and the works relating to the doctrine of 
Clement and Origen which have been already quoted, § 62 notes 5 and 6. [Davidson’s 
Sacred Hermeneutics. Edinburgh. 1843,] 


The Alexandrians set a very high value on philoso both 
because it was formerly among the heathen what the law was 
among the Jews, a preparation for Christianity, and because by 
it alone a deeper knowledge of Christian doctrine is opened up, 
(yaar, hence yvworitoi, in Origen oogia, 7 Oia cogia).' This 
yvaeog was certainly different from the pevddrupoc yvoaie of the 
errorists ; since the received doctrines of the church (nioric)} 


commutata. Caetera autem dogmata, de angelorum ruina, de animarum lapsu, de resurrec- 
tionis preestigiis, de mundo vel intermundiis Epicuri, de restitutione omnium in aequalem 
statum, et multo his deteriora, quae longum esset retexere, vel ita vertisse, ut in Graeco 
invenerat, vel de commentariolis Didymi, qui Origenis apertissimus propugnator est, ex- 
aggerata et firmiora posuisse. Ejusd. Epist. 94, ad Avitum: Quae insania est, paucis de 
Filio et Spiritu Sancto commutatis, quae apertam blasphemiam praeferebant, caetera ita 
ut scripta sunt protulisse in medium? Respecting his own and other earlier versions, 
Ejusdem Epist. 41, ad Pammach. et Oceanum: Ego omnia, quae vitiata fuerunt, correxi. 


. Nec disertiores sumus Hilario, nec fideliores Victorino, qui ejus tractatus, non ut interpre 


tes, sed ut auctores proprii operis transtulerunt. Nuper S. Ambrosius sic Hexaémeron 
illius compilavit, ut magis Hippolyti sententias Basiliique sequeretur. On the translation 
of Rufinus, see Redepenning Prolegomena, p. xlv. To the lost writings also belong the 
oTpwpatei¢ in ten books. Philocalia a Basilio M. et Gregorio Theol. ex variis Origenis 
commentariis excerpta, primum graece ed. Jo. Tarinus. Paris. 1618. 4. Orig. Opp. omnia 
ed. Car. et Car. Vine. de la Rue. Par. 1740-59. 4 voll. fol. denuo recensuit C. H. E. Lom- 
matzsch, till the present time, 17 Tomi. Berolini, 1831-44 small 8 (containing the whole of 
his exegetical and smaller writings). 

1 Clemens in Strom. (ed. Potter) i i. p. 331: "Hv pev ody mpd Tie To Kupiov mapovoiac 
ele dixacootvnv "EAAnow dvayxaia GtAocodia’ vuvi dé xenoiun xpoc GeocéBevav yiverat, 
Tporatdsia TL¢ obca Toic THY TioTLW Ov dnodeifewe Kaprovmévore.—érraldayOyet Kat abt7 
(q dtAocogia) 76 ‘EAAnviKdr, O¢ 6 vépoc TOvE ‘EBpaiove ei¢ Xpuorov. P. 337: OcdOev Kev 
el¢ GvOpdrove. (Cf. vii. p.832: ‘'O Kipioc éotiv 6 dudove Kai roi¢ *EAAnoe THY grdocogiay 
dia TOV trodecorépwv ayyédov.) P. 338: didocodgiar dé ob THY Urwikiy Léya, ob68 THY 
TWharoviniy, Q thy ’Ercxobperéy te, kai’ Aptototedikqy’ GA boa elpntat rap’ éxaorg 
TOV alpéccwy TobTaV Kade, SiKatootvyy peta ebceBoic Extoriune éExdiddoxovTa, TodTO 
ovurav TO ekAexTLKOV grdocogiav énut. Hence his zeal against those who asserted (Strom. 
A. p- 326), mpd¢ Kaxod av THv otaAocodiay eicdedunévat Tov Biov éxi Ain Tév dvOpdrwr, 
poe Tivoe epeTod Tovnpod, namely (vi. p.773 and 822), Tod diaBoAov. Origenes in Gene- 
sin Hom. 14, §.3: Philosophia neque in omnibus legi Dei contraria est, neque in omnibus con- 
sona. Moralis et physica, quae dicitur philosophia, paene omnia, quae nostra sunt, sentiunt. 

2 Clem. Strom. vii. p- 864: "Eorw yap, dg éxog eimeiv, 7 yvdorg TeAeiwaig Tig dvOpérov, 


212 . FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. Il.—A.D. 193-324 


as molded and modified in express opposition to..the Gnos- 
tics, were adopted as an immutable basis for the orthodox 
Gnosis. Yet these orthodox Gnostics were led by the con- 
nection of certain general philosophical principles and opinions 
with Christianity, to many speculations which were very like 
those of their heretical brethren. Like them too, they believed 
that their Gnosis* had been handed down as a mysterious doc-— 
trine ;‘ and,that it should be communicated only to the initia- 

tud.> Henee Origen writes about such doctrines with visible 
he itation, and warns in particular, against bringing them before 
opie.’ ‘Toward the uninitiated, the Alexandrians regarded 






BeDparon, bia the TOv Oeiwy éExtorhun¢e ovpnAnpovuévy, KaTa TE TOY TPdTaV Kal TOY 
Biov Kai Tov Adyov obudwroc Kai 6ubdAoyoc éavT_Z Te Kai TO Oeiw AOyw.. Ava Tabty¢ yap 
TeAelodral } TLoTLC, Oe TEAEiov TOD TLOTOD TAbTY LbVvac ylyvouévov. P. 865: 'H pév ody 
‘mtotic otvTomoc éoTlv, O¢ eizetv, TOV KaTETELYOYTIOV yvootcg: 4 yvGouc d& arddesicg TOV 
61a wiaTews TapecAnupevev layupa Kai BéBatoc, 1a Tio KvptakHe OidacKadiac éxotKodo-~ 
uovuévy TH TioTel. il. p-445: LZroryelwy yoov ti¢ yuoocewc Tov mposipnuévwr dpeTov 
(hope, repentance, abstinence, patience, love), croryerwdeorépav eivas ovuBéBnxe THY Tic- 

TW, obTw¢ GvayKaiay TO yveaTLKO brdpyovoar, O¢ TO KaTa TOV KéguOY Tévde BLodyTL TpOE 
td Cv Th avarveiv. ‘Qe & dvev Tév Tecodpwr aTolxeiwy odK ~ott hv, ob0' dvev TicTEws 
yraaiw éraxohovijoat: abrn Toivuy Kpntic dAnGeiac. Origines c. Celsum lib. vi. (ed.. 
Spencer. p: 284) : 'H beta toivuy codia, érépa oboa Tie TioTEws, MPATOv éoTL THY Ka,ovsLEvwY 
xaplomaror TOU feos Kai per’ Exeivnv dedbtepor, Toig dxpiBadv Ta ToLabTa Emeorapéevorcy 
h Kadovpévyn yraotg* Kai tpirov (émet odlecbat xpy Kat Tobe ariovorépouc, TpoolovTacg 
kata dbvauty TH OeoceBeig) h mioTL¢, with reference to 1 Cor. xii. 8,9. De Principiis, i- 
praef. § 3: Illud autem scire oportet, quoniam sancti Apostoli fidem Christi praedicantes 
de quibusdam quidem, quaecunque necessaria crediderunt, omnibus—manifestissime 
tradiderunt, rationem scilicet assertionis eorum relinquentes ab his inquirendam, qui Spirit- 
us dona excellentia mererentur: de aliis vero dixerunt quidem, quia sint; quomodo 
autem, aut unde sint, siluerunt, profecto ut studiosiores quique ex posteris suis, qui 

_ ‘amatores essent sapientiae, exercitium habere possent, in quo ingenii sui fructum osten- 

derent, hi videlicet qui dignos se et capaces ad recipiendam sapientiam. praepararent. 

Neander’s K. G. i. ii. 912, ff, A. F. Daehne de yrdéoes Clem. Al: Lips. 1831.8. Rede- 

penning’s Origenes, i. 335. : 

3 And still earlier, Philo. See Grossmann de Judaeoram disciplina arcani, p. i. (a 
Leipzig programme at the Reformation-anniversary, 1833. 4). 

* Clemens Strom) yi. p. 771: Tvworixy rapadootc.—f yvaotc 0& abtH, 7 kata Suadoyie 
cic dAéyoue ék THY ’AtrooTéAwY aypddwe Tapadebeioa KaTeAnAviev. Idem Hypotyp. vii- 
(ap. Euseb. H, E. ii. 1, 2): "laxéBw 76 dixaly cat lwévyy kai Métpy pera tHv dvdoracwy 
mupédoKe THY yvdow 6 Kbptog* obroL Tog AoLroi¢ arocTbAoLe TapéSwxar, of dé Aoirol 
anrdatodot Toicg éBdounKovra.. Origines, c. Cels. vi. p. 279: "Ijoote, 67 wév AdAe TOV 
Tod Oeov Abyov Toig waOnraic Kar’ idiay, Kai waddiora év taic dvaxepicecty, eipytat- 
tiva 0 iis a EAeyev, obx avayéyparrat’ ob yap egatvero atrote ypanréa ixavadc civas 
TabTa Mpoc TOvE TOAAODC, ObdE AyTa. 

5 Clem. Strom. i. p. 324: Td pév éxdv raparéurouat, exréywr éexiornubvuc, doB8oipevog 
ypaderv, & kai Aéyerv Edvdagdunr. ob ti mov Gbovdv, od yap O&utc, dediac O& dpa rept 
tév évtvyxavértor, un my éTépwe opareiev, Kal rai pdyatpav, 7 daowv of mapotuta- 
Copevot, dpéyovTec ebpebapev. Origen: c. Cels. i. p. 7: In Christianity let there be rive 
olov ueTa. Ta ELwTepixa, wy ele Tod¢e TOAAOVE GOdvovTa. ; 

6 Thus the doctrine of the termination of future punishment. Respecting his views de 





\ 


CHAP. II1—CATHOLIC THEOLOGY.’ I. § 63. BERSASRMAN THEOL. 213 


a certain accommodation as. necessary, which might venture 
even to make use of falsehood for the attainment of a good end, 
yea, which was obliged to do so;’ and hence: they did not seru- 
ple to acknowledge in many ecclesiastical doctrines such an 
accommodation.* 

The Alexandrian theology set out with the most easton wea 
of God, and strove to keep far away from it all anthropopathie 
limitations. In like manner it declared the freedom of the ra- 
tional being to be inalienable ; and asserted for the purpose of 
removing from the Deity every idea of groundless caprice,. that y y 

Nie 
the external circumstances of all morally free beings can ( 
conditioned. only by their moral state. Since, at the e. 
time, this theology assumed that the world was created only 
on account of rational. beings, and conformably to their moral 






fine vel consummatione, he says, de Princ. i. 6, § 1: Quae quidem a nobis etiam cum 
magno metu et cautela dicuntur, discutientibus magis et pertractantibus quam pro certo 
ac definito statuentibus, etc. 

7 Plato de Republ. iii. had long before allowed untruth in certain cases év renee 
eldex as useful. So also Philo, who speaks just as the Christian Alexandrians, of a two- 
fold-mode of religious instruction, Quod Deus sit immutabilis, p. 302: Oi uév ody ebuoipov 
gicews haxvrec Kal dywy7¢ dvuraitiov—aAnbeig ovvodorTtépw Xp@vtTat, Tap’ Ay ponblév- 
TEG TH TEPL TOD dvTo¢ apevdiy uvorTnpia, TOV yevécewe obdév TpocavarAdTTovoly adT@ 
(76 O26). Todrece oiketdratov mpdéxettat KegaAacov év Toic Lepogavrnbeior ypnauoic, bte 
obx Oc GvOpuTo¢ 6 Oed¢, GAN’ 088 Oe odpavoc, obf We Kdauoc.—Oi O& ye VwHeoTépa fev 
Kai GuBAcia Keypnuévor TH doer, TEpi O& TAG év TaLol Tpoddco TAHuUpEAHOHYTEC, Od 
xabopav ddvvatodrtec latpGv déovTat vouobeTav of mpd¢ TO Tapdv wabog THY oikeiay 
éxwwonaovot Oeparsiav.—Marbavétwoav obv raver oi TovoiTot Ta evdj, Ov Gv OGEAy- 
OqoovTai, ei py dbvuvTat Ov dAnbeiac cwopovivecbar. Clemens Al. Strom. vi. p. 802: 
Yetorat TO 6vte oby of cupmepidepouevor Ov oikovouiay owrnpiac—aAW’ oi gic TA KUpLaTATE 
raparintovrec Kai Gberobvrec mév TOV Kipiov 76 doov éx’ abtoic drdoTEpodyTec dé TO 
‘Kupiov rv dani didackadiav. Origines Strom. vi. (in Hieronymi Apol. i. adv. Rufin. c. 
18) brings forward that passage of Plato in defense of this kind of accommodation, and 

‘= adds: Homo autem, cui incumbit necessitas mentiendi, diligenter attendat, ut sic utatur 
interdum mendacio, quomodo condiménto atque medicamine, ut servet ménsuram ejus. 
Ex quo perspicuum est, quod nisi ita mentiti fuerimus, ut magnum nobis ex hoc aliquod 
quaeratur bonum, judicandi simus quasi inimici ejus, qui ait: “ Ego’sum veritas.” Cf. 

- Historia antiquior sententiarum Eccl. graecae de accommodatione Christo inprimis et 
Apostolis tributa, diss. scripsit F. A. Carus. Lips. 1793. 4. 

«8 Origines e. Cels. iii. p. 159, in allusion to the Christian eschatology attacked by Celsus : 
"Edy 0é tig év TodToLe ecowduLmoviav uahAov 7 rovnpiav TEpi Tobe TLAAO’S TOY TicTEv- 
OvTOV TO doy eivat gavtavyrat, kal éyxadg de Serotdaipovag TowobvTe TO AOYY peasy “te 

\ Ooolev mpd¢ airov, éru Gerep theyé reg TOY vouoberav (Solon) xpdc¢ EpuT@vra, el Tove 

kad2iorove £ero Toic ToAiTatc vououe, bre ob rode Kabdrak KaArAicrove, dAW dv edbvavTo 
Tove kaAdiorovc. Obtw Aéyorto dy Kai drs Tod maTpd¢ TO’ XpioTLavav Abyov, 6 6Tt, Ov 
édévarto ol roAA0i eic Bedrinow HOav, tobe KaAAiorove ébéunv vouove Kal didackariay, 
movoug ob wpevdeic drerAdv Kai Koddaetc Toic duaptdvovow, arn’ dA deic Mev Kai dvay- 
Kaiove, € éravépQwowv TOV GVTiTELvOvT@V Tpooayouévouc ob May Kal TaVTWC TO TOU 
“wAdlovrog BodtAnua, cat TO TOV TévwY Epyov* Kal TOUTO yap TpoC TO YpHowuov, Kai Karta 
ed GAnbe¢, Kot per’ Extepinpewg cvugepdvTwg AéyeTat. 


214 FIRST PERIOD.—DIY. IT1.—A.D. 193-324. “ 


necessities, the existence of evil in the present world was. there- 
by explained, and the necessity of a succession of worlds was es- 
tablished, so far as the moral conditions of those beings change. 
~The most remarkable of their principles which result from these 
- premises, and appear fully unfolded in Origen, are the following : 
1., The Godhead can never be idle. Before the present world 
there was an endless series of ‘worlds, and an infinitte succession 
of them will follow it.° 
2. All intellectual beings (angels, stars, men, demons) were 
originally created alike, but they were never without bodies, 
_ since incorporeality is a peculiar prerogative-of Deity. After a 
creat moral inequality had arisen among them by their difference 
of eonduct, God created the present world, which affords a 
dwelling-place to all elasses in correspondence with their: morah 
condition., The fallen intellectual beings he put into bodies 
more or less gross, according to the measure of their. sinful- 
ness.1° Still they all retain their moral freedom, so that they 
may rise again from the degraded circumstances in which they 
exist. Even the punishments of the condemned are not eternal, 
but only remedial; the devil himself being capable of ameliora- 
tion and pardon.!! When the world shall have answered its 
purpose, as the abode of fallen spirits, it will then be destroyed 
by fire; and by this very fire souls will be completely purified 
from all stains contracted by intimate union with the body * 


® Still earlier Clement in the Hypotyposes tAnv dypovov,—éru dé petempoxdcetc, Kar 
ToAAove TPO Tod ’Aday Kdopovc Teparederat (Phot. Cod. 109). Origines de Princ. iii.-5, 3 
In like manner Plato and the Stoics. 

10 That Clement also taught this, Strom. iv. p. 640, is asserted by Keil. Opp. vol. ii. p. 
652, but denied by Hofstede de Groot Disp. de Clem, Alex. p. 60: Both accordingly 
interpret the word pereuwvydoerc in Photius, note 9, differently. On the other hand, 
Origen advances this doctrine plainly, de Princ. ii. 9,§ 6. Cf Keil. p..654, ss. A similar 
doctrine of Basilides, see Neander’s Gnost. Systeme, §S. 41, 50, ff. 

u_That Clement. Strom. i. p. 367, s., 6 68 ArdBoroc aitegobatocg Ov, kal peravojoas 
oiote Te WV Kal KAéWat, did not hold this point, is proved by Hofstede de”Groot, p. 71. On 
the contrary, Origen de Princip. i. 6. § 2: Hi vero, qui de statu primae beatudinis moti 
quidem sunt, non tamen irremediabiliter moti, illis, quos supra descripsimus, sanctis 
beatisque ordinibus dispensandi subjecti sunt ac regendi: quorum adjutorio usi, et insti- 
tutionibus ac disciplinis salutaribus reformati, redire ac restitui ad statum suae beatitudinis _ 
possint.—§ 3: Ex quo, ut opinor, hoc consequentia ipsa videtur ostendere, unamquamque _— 
rationabilem naturam posse ab uno in alterum ordinem transeuntem per singulos in omnes, 
et ab omnibus in singulos pervenire, dum accessus profectuum defectuumve varios pro 

‘ motibus vel conatibus propriis unusquisque pro liberi arbitrii facultate perpetitur. 

12 Clemens Strom. vii. c. 6, in fine p. 851. (Cf. Hofstede de Groot Disp. de Clem. Alex. 
p. 108, ss.) Origines in Exod. xv. 5 (Hom. vi. in Exod, ed. de la Rue, t. ii. p. 148) : Tdcirco 
igitur qui salvus fit, per ignem salvus fit, ut si quid forte specie plambi habuerit admixtum, 


a 


CHAP. II—CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. I. § 63. ALEXANDRIAN THEOL. 215 


But as spirits always retain their freedom, they may also sin 
again, in which case a new world like this will be again neces- 
sary. | 

3. The Alexandrians speak of the Logos,’* the mediator of all 
Divine agency, in very exalted, but not always definite expres- 
sions. Evidently, however, they place him beneath the supreme 
God." Their endeavor to remove all ideas unworthy of God 


id ignis decoquat, et resolvat, ut efficiantur omnes aurum bonum. Veniendum est ergo 
omnibus ad ignem, veniendum est ad conflatorium. Sedet enim Dominus, et conflat, et 
purgat filios Juda (Mal iii.3). Sed et illuc cum venitur, si quis multa opera bona, et parum 
aliquid iniquitatis attulerit, illud parum tanquam plumbum igni resolvitur ac purgatur, et 
totum remanet aurum purum.. Et si quis plus illuc plumbi detulerit, plus exuritur, ut 
amplius decoquatur ut etsi parum aliquid sit auri, purgatum tamen resideat. Quod si 
aliquis illuc totus plumbeus venerit, fiet de illo hoc quod scriptum est, demergetur in pro- 
fundum, tanquam plumbum in aquam validissimam. Homil. xiv. in Lucam (Et. iii. p. 948): 


Ego puto, quod et post resurrectionem ex mortuis indigeamus sacramento eluente nos 


atque purgante: nemo enim absque sordibus resurgere poterit. C. Celsum, v. p. 240, s. 
against Celsus; who derided the notion of a conflagration of the world, o} cvviday, re, 
Horep ‘EAARvay Tioiv édoke (raxa Tapa Tov apxacorarov 26vouc ‘EBpaiwv AaBodor), Td 
Tip xabdpo.ov émdyerae TO Kéouw* elxdg 0 6te Kai. ékdotw TOV deouévwr Tic dia ToD 
mupod¢ dixne Gua Kai latpeiac. 

13 Comp. with reference to Clement of Alexandria Martini’s Gesch. d. Dogma v, d. 
Gottheit Christi, 8. 74, ff. Guerike de Schola Alex. P. ii. p. 131, ss. Hofstede de Groot, 
p- 47, ss. Redepenning’s Origines, i. 109, with references to Origen: Martini, 8. 151, ff 
Guerike, 197, ss. Schleiermacher in his theolog. Zeitschrift, Heft 3, 8. 342, ff. Rettberg. 


.doctrina Originis de Aéy@ divino, in Illgen’s Zeitschr. f. hist. Theolog. iii. 1, 39. Origenes 


v. Thomasius, 8. 129. On both see Baur’s Lehre vy. d. Dreieinigkeit, i. 186. Meier's 
Lehre v. Trinitat, i. 93. 

4 Clem. Strom: vii. p. 831: TeAewwrary 67 kai dytw7aTn, Kai KuplwTdrn, Kal yE“oviKe- 
TaTn, Kai Bactdinararn, kai ebepyetikwtatn 7 viod ddate, 4 TO Ov mavtoKpéropt 
mpooexeotary. Paedag. ili. p. 251: Meoirne 6 Abyoc, 6 Kowvdcg audotv, feod pév vide, 
GwTIip oe dvOparav - Kat Tod wey didKovoc, Huav dé matdaywyoc. Strom. vii. p. 838: Td 
debtepov aittov.—Origines Comm. in Johannem, tom. ii. 2: TiOnat (ladvvnc) rd apOpor, 
bre 7 Oed¢ dvouacia éxi-rot dyevyntov TacceTat Tdv bAwy aitiov, cLwrd d2 aitd, dtE 6 
Adyoc Oed¢ évoudlerat.—abrobeoe (4AnOvig Oedc) 6 Oede art, OtéTEp Kal d-cwrHp dno ev 
TH Tpo¢ Tov rarépa ebyq, iva yivdckwol oe Tov pdvov GAnOvov Oedv (Jo. xvii. 3), ray d2 
TO mapa TO abtobeog weToxG TH éxeivov. GedTyTo¢g BeoroLobpevor, ody 6 Oed¢ GALA Bed¢ 
xuplotepov dv Aéyoito. © wavTwc 6 TpwTéToKOg TéoNG KTicEwc GTe TPATOG TO Tpog TOV 
Gebv eivar, omdoac Tig OeéTyTO¢ eig EauTOV, éoTi TYLLGTEpOE Toi¢ AoLTOi¢ Tap’ adTov Beoi¢ 

7. 2. (how loose the Alexandrians were in the use of Gedc may be seen below, note 26), 
ei révta dud Tod Aéyou éyéveto, oby brd Tod Adyou éEyévEeTo, GAN bxd KpEitToVvog Kai 
petlovog mapa Tov Adyov. C. Cels. viii. -—p. 387: "Eorw dé, tivdc¢—did THY TpoTéTELan 
brotibecOa: Tov Lwrijpa eivat tov él wat Oedv~ GAP obrrye Huci¢ ToLodTov, ol TELObuevot 
aro Aéyorti, 6 waTHp 6 Témag Us, wetlwv pov éoti (Jo. xiv. 28). _ Hence he is called, lib. 
V. p. 258, dettepo¢ Ged. Comm. in Joh. tom. xiii. 25: Tov cwripa, kai To TveduaTo GyLov 
brepexouevov Tocoitor 7) Kai wAéov dd Tod TaTpdc, boy brrepéxet abro¢ Kal T6 &ytov 
xvetua Tov AoixGv.—é vidc od ovyKpiverat kar’ obdév TH Tatpi. Eixav yap éotl tic 
dyaboryroc. airov, Kal énavyaopa ov Tov. Geod, “Aaa tie 06&n¢ abtod, kai Tod didiov 
GuTd¢ abtod, Kal dtpule ob Tod marpoc, 2a Tic Suvdpews abtod, kai axdppora elduxpwving 
HS RAVTOKpATOpLKAC dosn¢ abrot, Kai EoomTpov dxndidwrov THC évepyeiac abrov, dv’ 
ob écéxrpav Iaido wai érpoc, xat’ol xaparAgjocor abtroig BAérovoer tov Gedy, Aé- 
yovro¢* 6 éapakig ud Edpaxe tov warépa, Toy TéuparTa we. De Princ. i. 2,13: Obra 


216 FIRST PERIOD.—DIvV. HI—AD. 1932324. 


from the generation - the Son, was completed ‘By. Origen int 
his assertions that the Logos did not proceed from the es- 
sence of the Father,’ but as a constant ray of the Divine 
glory'* was brought forth, 7. ¢., created, or generated!’ by the 
of God," and that from eternity.” But he taught that 


Toivey qyovpat Kai én? Tov  cwrhpoc kaniog av jez Phoecbat, 6rt eixov Y Miretae ToD 
Oeod éctiv, GAN obk abroayabév: Kai réxa cal vide dyabdc GAW oby a og dnhac dyabbc. 
kal orep eixdv éoti Tod Oeod tod dopdrov, kai kata ToiTO Bede, GA’ ob mepi od Aéyet 
abroc 6 Xpior “iva ywéoxwot ce Tov udvov GAnbivov Oedv.” obtwe eixndov dyabérnroe, 
GAN oby O¢ 6 TaTip GrapaAddxto¢ ayabéc. 

18 Orig. Comm. in Joh. p. 306 : "AARoL 62 76, EEGABOv xd Tod eo, Sinyhoavro avri 
Tov, yeyévenuat Gxd Tod eos, ol¢ axoAovbei éx tig obciac GacKeLv Tod RaTpdg yeyévyn- 
cbat Tov vibv, olovet wevovpévov, Kai Aeixovtog TH obcia, 4 KpOTEpoV elye.—aKohovbel dF 
aitoicg kal CGpa Aéyewv Tov zatépa Kai-tov vidv, Kai diyppoOa Tov watépa, Gxep éoTt 


. dbypata dvOpdrwr, und’ bvap ovo. dépatov Kai doéuarov repavtacpévar, odcar Kvpioc 


obciay, k.t. 2. De Prine. i. 2, 6, iv. 28. The Logos is indeed dxdppota tripe ddEne Tod 
Ge0%, but not dxépfhora rod Geod, Comm. in Joh. tom. xiii. 25, see above, note 14. 

16 Origines in Jerem. Hom. ix. 4: he is dxatyaoua dé6énc. Td drabyacua tic J6EnC 
obyt drat yeyévynrat kal obyi yevvdrar: GAA bcov éoti Td be TOLNTLKOY Tod Grrabyac- 


' patoc, éxt Toocodtov yevvadta To drabyacua tic ddSyn¢ Tod Geod. De Princ. i. 2,4: Est 


ita aeterna ac sempiterna generatio, sicut splendor generatur ex luce. 

17 Orig. de Princ. i. 2, 6: Filius utique natus ex patre est, velut quaedam voluntas ejas 
ex mente procedens. Et ideo ego arbitror, quod sufficere debeat voluntas patris ad sub- 
sistendum hoc quod vult pater. _ Volens enim non alia via utitur, nisi quae consilio, volun- 
tatis profertur. Ita ergo et filii subsistentia generatur ab eo. Idem.in Justiani Epist. ad 
Mennam (Mansi Collect. concill. ix. p. 525): Obrog dé 6 vide éx GeAjuatog rod atpoc 
yevonbeic. 

18 So already Clement, Redepenning’s Origines, i..109, Origines in-Genesin (ap. Euse- 
bius contra Marcellum, i. c. 4, ap. de la Rue ii. p. 1): Ob yap 6 bed mathp eivar HpEaro, 
Kw@Avéuevoc, Oc oi yevouevor ratépes GvOpwrot, bxd Tod pH Cbvacbai rw Tarépec sivat. 
Ei yap dei réAevog 6 Geb¢, kai mapectiv aité Svvauic Tod matépa airov elvat, Kal Ka2or, 
abrov eivat narépa Tov ToLovTov viod* Ti GvaBdrrerat, kai éavTov Tod Kadod ornpioket, 
kai, ac éotiv elzeiv, 2& ob dbvatat mzatyp eivat viod. Td abttd pévrotye kai repi Tod 
dyiov rvetuatoc Aexréov. But mocunding, to Methodius ap. Photium Cod. 235, Origen 
also asserted on like grounds ovvaidcov sivar t—Oe@ To. Tav. Comp. de Princ. i. 2, 2, iv. 
28. The fragment of Origen ap. Athanasius de Decretis syn. Nic. c. 27, is very like the 
last passage : ‘Owolétye Tuyxavur Tot marpoc (6 vid¢) odx éoTiv bre odk Hv. Tlére yap 6 
bedc—drravyacpua obk eixe tHe idiac b6En¢, iva ToAuHoac tic dpxhv 6@ eivat vicd péTEpov 
ovx bvto¢; Katavoeita yap 6 ToAuGy Kai Aéyov “Hv Kore te obk Hv 6 vide,” Ste épei Kai. 
76° cogia nore obK Hv, Kat 2A6yo¢ obK Hv, Kai Gay ob Hv. Orig. Comm. in Joh. p. 33: To- 
vide pov el od, éyd ofmepov yeyévvnka ce, Aéyetat mpd¢ abrov bd Tod Geod @ dei Eote Td 
onuepov.—b avunapexteiver Ty dyevv7iTy Kal didiy aitod Cay#—xpbvoc juépa éotiv aiTS 
onpepov, év 4 yeyévvyrat 6 vide. In Jeremiam Hom. ix. (t. iii. p. 181): Obi éyévynoev 6 
marip Tov vidy, kal axéAvoev abtov 6 ratHp xd Tic yevécswg abtod, GAN dei. yevve 
aitév. So, according to Plotinus, the voi¢ also has originated eternally from the One, and 


the mgstarsagoas eepaneen denotes mows aitiay kai téévv, Detacelieet s Gesch. d. Philos 


vi. 89. ‘ os 

19 Every Hanieh term to express this production could not bea ‘fit representative, but 
only an incomplete symbol. Thus, as far as the, Logos was a being like to God, his 
origination was a yevvdy, so far as he was produced by the will of God, a woveiv, xrigecy. 
Respecting Clement, see Photius Cod. 109: .rév vidv ei¢ xrioua Katdyer (namely, in the 
Hypotyposes). Even Rufinus de Adulterat. libb. Origenis confesses: Interdum i invenimus 
aliqua in libris ejus (Clementis) capitula, in quibus filium Dei creaturam dicit; although 


CHAP. il —CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. I. $63. ALEXANDRIAN THEOL. 217 


the Holy Ghost was a creature created by the Son, as all other 
things.”* 8 

4. The human Yody assumed by the Logos was a real body, 
but could not have been a common one. According to Clement, 
it was united immediately with the Logos, and therefore, as is re- 
quired by the Divine dzdé@eva of the latter, without é67.2*  Ori- 
gen taught expressly a human soul in the person of Christ, with 
which the Logos united itself directly.” Thus those 7é0n were 


he would fain regard these passages as spurious. Clemens Strom. v. p. 699: ‘H cogia 7 
Tpwroxtiotoc TH Ge. So also Origines Comm. in Joh. tom. i. 22: Kricac—tuwuyov 
cogiav 6 Gedc. Contra Celsum, v. p. 357, the Son is mpecBitarov rdvtwy Tov SnuLovpyn- 
udrwv. So also Justinian, l, c. accuses Origen of calling the Son xtioyua, de Princip. lib. 
iv. These expressions were now generally used by others since in Prov. viii: 22: Képtoc 
Ex7i0é we dpynv 66Gv abrod was a cardinal passage relating to the Logos. See Minter’s 
Dogmengesch. i. 445—The question whether the Son was of the divine essence was 
capable of receiving a twofold answer from the standing-point of Origen. De Princip. iv. 
36, according to the translation of Jerome (Epist. ad Avitum): Intellectualem rationabil- 
emque naturam sentit Deus et unigenitus- Filius ejus et Spiritus sanctus; sentiunt angeli 
et potestates, caeteraeque virtutes; sentit interior homo qui ad imaginem et similitudinem 
Dei conditus est. x quo concluditur, Deum et haec quodammodo unius esse substantiae. 
Fragm. ex libris in Epist. ad Hebr. in the apology of Pamphilus: Christus—secundum 
similitudinem ejus vaporis, qui de substantia aliqua corporea procedit, sic etiam ipse ut 
quidam vapor exoritur de virtute ipsius Dei.—Sic nihilominus et secundum similitudinem 
corporalis aporrhoeae esse dicitur aporrhoea gloriae Omnipotentis pura quaedam et sin- 
cera. Quae utraeque similitudines manifestissime ostendunt, communionem substantiae 
esse Filio cum Patre. Aporrhoea enim doovoto¢ videtur, i. e., unius substantiae cum illo 
corpore, ex quo ést vel aporrhoea, vel vapor. Selecta in Psalm 135: ‘O cwryp ob xatad 
Letovoiav, GAAa Kar’ obciav éoti Pedc. On the other hand de Oratione c. 50: “Erepo¢ 
xa?’ ovciav Kai troxeivevév éotiv 6 vide Tod waTpéc... Comp. Comm. in Joh. tom. ii.-18. 
The Son was of the divine essence, but did not partake of the divine essence of the Father. 
20 Origines in Johann. i. 3. (de la Rue iv. p. 60): Oluas yap, ért 7H wév OaoKovte yevn- 
Tov TO rvebpa TO Gytov eivat, Kai Tpoiemévy 76“ raévta Ov abrod éyéveto,” dvayKaiov 
mapadétacbat, 6tt Th Gyltov Tvedua Oia Tod Adyou éyévEeTo, mpecBuTépov Tap’ aid Tov 
Aoyou Tuyxdvovtoc.—Hyeic zpei¢ droordcee wetfouevor tTvyxavetv, Tov waTépa,-Kal Tov 
vidv, Kai TO Gylov Tvedpua, Kal Gyévvnrov undév ETEpov Tod TaTpoc eivar TLoTEboVTEC, Ou 
‘eboeBéotepov Kai dAnbéc, mpoctéucba 76, rdvTwY dia TOU Adyou yivou“évwr, TO Gytor 
xvetia tavTav elvat Tiysotepov, Kal Taser mévTwY [perhaps zpdrov] Tdv bxd Tod 
matpoc Ova Xprorod yeyevyuévwov. Kai raya abry totiv 7 aitia rod wy Kai adro vidv. 
Xenuatifery tod Ocod,; udvov tod povdyevode Gicer viod apy7Oev rvyxavovtoc, ob xpHlecv 
forke t6 Gytov xvedpa, dtaxovodvtog abtod tH brooTaoeL, ob udvov ei¢ TO elvat, GAR. 
' Kal cogdr eivat, kal Aoyixdv Kal dixatov,K.7. A. De Prine. i. 3, 5: Meifov 7 divauic Tod 
- ‘®atpdc mapa Tov vidv kal Td Tvebua TH Gylov. Aciwv d2 7 Tod viod rapa Td Tvedua Td 
. Gytov, kat réAcy dtadépovca UGAAov Tod dyiov. xvetuatog 7 Sivaute Tapa Ta dAAa ya. 
71 Strom. vi. p. 775: ’Exi wév tod cwtipo¢g 76 oapua admateiv O¢ cdua Ta¢ dvayKatag © 
trnpeciac ele deapovijy, yédug av ein. "Egayev yap ob did 76 cOua, duvdper ovveyouevov 
Gyig* GAW Ge uy Toi ovvévtag GAAws repli abtod gpoveiv bretcé2Oo1, Gorep dpéhet 


torepov dokice: tives abtiv ragavepGcbar bréAaBov* abrog dé dnaganhoc arabic Hv, ~ 


el¢ bv obddv raperodberar Kivnua TabytiKdy, obte Hd0v}, obte Ab7y. Comp. my Comm.. 

qua Clem. Alex. et Origenis doctrinae de corpore Christi exponuntur. Gottingae. 1837. 4. 
22 Origenes de Princip’ ii. 6, §.3: Hac ergo substantia animae inter Deum carnemque 

‘mediante Gore enim Bonsibite erat Dei naturam corpori sine mediatore misceri) nascitur 


218 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I1.—A.D. 193-324. 


uo stumbling-block. to him, since the soul was affected only 
through them. On the contrary, in his opinion, the body: of - 
Christ, as an appropriate instrument of revelation, was so consti-. 
tuted as, according to the degree of their merit, either to conceal 


_. the majesty of the Logos from men, or to allow it to shine through . 


with more or less radiance. Clement, as wet: as Origen, sens 
cine’d opposed the docetic views. 

5. The Christian sage (6 ywodrée), i in the way the Alexan- 
drians represent him as a pattern, is said to be elevated above 
the simple believer, not merely by higher singe eg but also 
by a higher virtue which is entirely dispassionate.” The aim 
of this virtue is likeness to God,”° its basis, freedom from all the 
restraints of sensuality,’ its character the highest disinterested- 
yess.?? 


Deus homo, illa substantia media existente, cui utique contra naturam non erat corpus 
assumere. 
23 In Matth. Comment. series, § 100: Venit traditio talis ad nos de Jesu, quoniam non 


‘solum duae formae in eo fuerunt, una quidem secundum quam omnes eum videbant, altera 


‘autem secundum quam transfiguratus est coram discipulis suis in monte :—sed etiam 
unicuique apparebat secundum quod fuerat dignus. Et non mihi videtur incredibilis esse 
traditio haec, sive corporaliter propter ipsum Jesum, ut, alio et alio modo videretur homini- 
bug, sive propter ipsam Verbi naturam, quod non similiter cunctis apparet. Contra Celsum, 


iv. 16: Eloi yap diddopor oiovel tod Adyou. nopdal, Kaboc éxdoTw Tév ele ExtoTrhunv 


Gyouévov daivetat 6 Adyoc, dvadoyov tH EEet Tod eloayopévov, 7) em’ dAiyov kpokérTor- 
TOC, } én wAciov, kK. T. 2. My Comm. p. 15. 

24 Both have often been accused of holding docetic views even in ancient times. Thus 
according to Photius Cod. 109, Clement in his Hypotyposes is said to have taught directly, 
Lh capkwobjvar Tov Aoyor, GAG ddat. Modern writers, too, have discovered doceticism in 
the words of Clement, Coh. ad Graec. p. 86: Td dv@parov mpoownetov avaraBav Kai 


oapki dvardacdéuevog TO oarhpiov Spdua tij¢ dvOpwrdtntog bmexpivero. See on the 


other side my Comm. quoted in note 21. 

25 Clem. Strom. vi. p. 775: Kav yap wera Adyov yivoueva Ta Tpoeipnuéva (Ta doKxodvTa 
ayaba tov rabytiKGv Kivnudtor, olov Oapooc, GAov, xapav, éxiOvpiav) dyabd tic éxdé- 
xnrat, GAN’ obv ye éxi Tob TeAéiov ob mapadextéov. P. 825; ‘H éxitacic THC Kata TOV 
vouov Sixacoobyng TOV yvaoriKov Setxvuowy.—Tic—éni riv dKpdtnra ThE TioTEws YOph- 
oac, THY yraowy abtyv—aKporarne buolwe TebSeTar Ths KAnpovouiac. 

26 Clem. Strom. iv. p. 632: Avvarov, Tov yraorixor H0n- yevéobar Gedv" "Eye elt a, 
Oeot gore kad vior tiorov (Psalm cii. 6). Vi. p. 816: Tove éxvyvovtag abrov viod¢ 
dvayopevet Kai Deods. Hence he calls the gnostic OcoerdAe, Oeoeixedoc, Oeobuevoc, Oeo- 
Totovpevoc, év capt tepiroA@yv Oedb¢ (Strom. vii. p. 894), see Potter ad Cohort. ad gentes 
p- 88, ad Strom. iv. p. 633. Hofstede de Groot de Clem. Alex. p. 78, 86. Redepenning’s 
Origenes, i. 171. 

27 The body is called by Clem. Strom. iv. p. 626, rigon vii. p. 854, deoudc capkixéc, by 
Origen, according to Methodius ap. Photium Cod. 234, deoyog tH¢ Wuyqc, Orig. de Prine. i: 
7, 5, see Hofstede de Groot, p. 59, ss. Clem. Strom. iv. p- 569: ‘O roivey rod oduatog - 
dnd tHe Wuxie Kopiopos, 6 map’ bhov Tov Biov pereTapevoc TH GLA0G6ow, TpOOvUiaY KaTa- 
oxevaler yvworikyv. ‘Hence Clement requires of the Gnostic éyxpareiay, i.e. striving after . 
drdGeva, Keilii Opuse. acad. ii. p. 761, ss. Daehne de yvdcer Clementis, p. 105. 

28 Clem. Strom. iv. p: 576: Aeiy 0’ oluat wAre Oud G680v KoAdcewe, unte Ord Teva étay 


_ CHAP. IIL—CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. I. § 63, ALEXANDRIAN THEOL. 219 


6. The Alexandrians could not but be averse to sensual chili- 
asm. Clement does not allude to it. Origen, however, expressly 
opposes the chiliast expectations ; and would ‘have all the pas- 
sages which appear to favor it interpreted allegorically.”? 

7. Since, in the view of the Alexandrians, the body is merely 
a prison of the true Je, they also assumed that souls, at the time 
of the resurrection, would not resume the gross material body, 
but one of'fine, incorruptible texture. 

To establish this system from the Holy Scriptures the Alex- 
andrians availed themselves of the allegorical mode of interpreta- 
tion which had been in use before. But after the interpretation 
of Scripture had been thus made a mere arbitrary play of fancy 
till now, Origen gained for himself the merit of reinstating the 
grammatical interpretation in its rights, by a more accurate dis- 
tinction between the literal, the moral, and the mystical (mys- 
. tic-anagogic and mystic-allegorical) sense. . In his commenta- 
ries he has furnished rich contributions toward the grammatical 
interpretation, by which means he. became the chief source for 
succeeding commentators. 


yediav ddcews, O” abtd J? Td ayabov, TpoceAnrAvévar TH cuoTnpiy Adyy. P. 626: El y 
ovv tic Kal’ brdbeow mpobsin TH yrwotiKG, ToTEpoy éA€oOat BodbAoito THY yvaov Tow 
Geod, } THY owrnpiav THY aidviov—ovde KaBoTLoiv dioTdoac, EXoLT’ dv THY yvdatv Tod 
Ge00. De Wette christl. Sittenlehre, Th. 2, Erste Halfte. 8. 221. 

39 A épiritualizing of chiliasm in the excerptis ex scriptis Theodoti (Clem. Opp. vol. iz. 
p- 1004): Of yap é& dvOparur ei¢ dyyéhouc petaotavTec xihva érn pabnrevovTa bn6 TOV 
ayyéhuv, k. tT. 4. Orig. de Princip. ii. 11, § 6: Puto enim, quod sancti quique discedentes 
de hac vita’ permanebunt in loco aliquo in terra posito, quem paradisum dicit scriptura 
divina velut in quodam eraditionis loco, et, ut ita dixerim, auditorio vel schola animaram, 
etc. On the other hand, ibid. § 2: Quidam ergo laborem quodammodo intelligentiae 
recusantes, et superficiem quandam legis literae consectantes, et magis sisapertae suae 
futuras in voluptate et luxuria corporis exspectandas: et propterea praecipue: carnes 
iterum desiderant post resurrectionem tales, quibus manducandi, et bibendi, et omnia. 
_ quae carnis et sanguinis sunt agendi numquam desit facultas, apostoli Pauli de resurrec- 
tione spiritalis corporis sententiam non sequentes. Cf. Prologas in Cant. Cant. 

30 Clemens Paedag. ii. p. 230: Abra Kabapg tH capxi éxevdvoduevor tiv égOapotav, 
Orig. de.Princ. ii. 10, 3 and c. 11 (see note 29). Cf. Guerike, 1. c. p. 164, 285. 

_ 31 The leading principle of his hermeneutics. Homil. v. in Levit. § 5: Triplicem in 
scripturis divinis’ intelligentiae inveniri saepe diximus modum, historicum, moralem; et 
- ™ysticum. Unde et corpus inesse ei et animam et spiritum intelleximus. (Comp. 
' Valentinus above, § 45.) His hermeneutical principles are laid down most fully in de 

Princip. lib. iv. Porphyry’s judgment on his allegories apud Eusebius H. E. vi. 19, 2. 3, 
among athers : "Eypyto dé Kai Xatphuovos Tov UTwikod, Kaupvotrow Te taic Bisiorc* 
Tap’ OY Tov peTadnntiKoy TOY rap’ “EAAnat wvotnpiwy yvov¢ Tpdrov, Talc "lovdaixaic 
Tpoonpe ypagaic. Cf Mosheim Comm. de rebus Christ. ante Const. M. p.629. J. A. Ernesti 
de Orig. ‘interp. librorum ss. grammaticae auctore (Opusc. philol. et crit. Lugd. Bat. 
1764. p. 288, ss.). Redepemning’s Origines, i. 290. [Davidson’s Hermeneutics, p. 97, ff} 


220 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV Ili.—A.D. 193-324." 


§ 64. 0 © oy alee 


. CONTINUATION )—ADHERENTS AND OPPOSERS OF ORIGEN. 
Origen’s peculiar opinions met, even in his lifetime, with as 
3 many opponents as friends,' and excited suspicion in many bish- 

ops.? He and his disciples, however, succeeded in combating and 
‘refuting many sensuous views and expectations which were thew 
current among Christians. ‘Thus some overvalued the importance 
of the body in the personality of man, so much as to suppose that 
the soul dies, and is again raised along with it.* Origen over- 
threw this error, when it appeared in Arabia.t- To his most 
distinguished disciple Dionysius (president of the catechetical — 
school from 233, from 248 bishop in Alexandria, + 265)° be- _ 
longs the merit of having victoriously continued in the east the 
opposition to chiliasm begun by his master. An opportunity 
for this was furnished to him by an Egyptian bishop, Nepos, 
who, in the éeyyxoc ’"AAAqyoporayv, insisted particularly on the 
literal acceptation of the Apocalypse, and the description of the 
millennium contained in it. Doubtless the Decian persecution, 
which soon followed, contributed to procure many advocates te 

a view which furnished so strong motives to Christian stead- 

- fastness, especially in the province of Arsinoe. But after the 
. i eal Dionysius succeeded by oral representations and 


1 Origines Hom. xxv. in Lucam: Plerique dum plus nos diligunt quam meremur, haee 
jactant et loquuntar, sermones nostros doctrinamque laudantes, quae conscientia nostra 
non recipit. Alii vero tractatus nostros calumniantes, ea-sentire nos criminantur, quae 
numquam sensisse nos novimus. Sed neque hi qui plus diligunt, neque illi qui oderant, 
veritatis regulam tenent, et alii per dilectionem, alii per odium mentiuntur. 

2 Euseb. H. E. vi.-36: [pager 62 kal baBtavo 7H xara ‘Péuny éxioxér@, érépote’ re 
Teiotow dpxyovow ékxAyoiGv zepi tig Kat’ abtov dpGodogiac. Hieron. Ep. 41, ad Pam- 
mach. et Oceanum: Ipse Origenes in epistola, quam scribit ad Fabianum Romanae urbis 
episcopum, poenitentiam agit cur talia scripserit, et causas temeritatis in Ambrosium 
refert, quod secreto edita in publicum protulerit. ; 

3 So also Tatian (Orat. ad Gr. c. 21). Comp. Daniel’s Tatianus, p- 226. 

4 Eusebius, vi. 37: "E2Xeyov, tv dvOpuretav puxny réwe pév Kata Tov évectara 
kalpov Gua ie TEAEvTz ovvaroOvijaKketv Toig cdpact Kal ovvdiagbeipectar* aibic dé 
WoTe Kata Tov The dvaoTdcEewe Katpdv odv adroi¢c dvaBrdcecbat. On the origin of ‘this 
opinion see § 29, note 10. The name Arabici first eppoars in Augustin. de Haeres, c. 85 
Gvntopvyxirar apud Joann. Damasc. Haer. 90. 

’ The fragments of his writings are collected by Gallandius Bibl. PP. t. iii. p. 481, ss. 
Simon de Magistris. Romae. 1796. fol. 


4 


CHAP. Ill—CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. I. § 64. ALEXANDRIAN THEOL. 99}. 


his work rept érayyedcdv, not only in convincing that party of. 
their error, but also in banishing chiliasm entirely among the 


theologians of the eastern church.® Similar opposition he pre-_ 


sented to Sabellius. It is true, that in trying to develop more 
precisely the Origenist distinctions as adverse to Sabellius’ doc- 
trine of the Trinity, he gave offense by designating the Logos 
a creature of the Father,? and was therefore blamed by the 
Leomish Dionysius; but the many-sided views which he had 
from Origen permitted him to cloak his view of the Logos 
as a created being without altering it. This convenient pli- 
ableness ef expression, in which Origen: himself had led the 
way, is also found in other followers. Theognostus simply re- 
peats the Origenist doctrine of the Logos in its different forms 
of presentation. On the other hand, as used by the opponent 
of Paul of Samosata, Gregory (bishop of Neo-caesarea from 
244, + about 270), for whom later traditions have procured the 
surname Thaumatur gus," this ee of the Logos fica to 


6 Euseb. H. E. vii. 24, 25. Dionysias thought that the Apocalypse was written by a: 


presbyter called John. Mynster Diss. de Dionysii Alex. cirea Apoc. Joann. sententia, 
bujusque vi in seriorum libri aestimationem. Hafn. 1826. Lucke’s Einl. in die Offenb. 
doh. §. 321, 397. < 

7 Omitted by Euseb. vii. 26. On the contrary, Athanasii repi Acoyvciov Tot ’Em. AA. 
liber. In the letter of Dionysius to Ammon bishop of Berenice and to Euphranor, it is 
said, Athanas. |. c. cap. 4: Tloinua Kat yevntov eivat Tov vidv Tod eon: hare de gvoes 
idtov, GAAG Sévov Kav’ ovciay civat Tod TaTpoc’ Gorep éotiv 6 yewpyo¢ mpog THY duredov 
(cf. Joh. xv. 1), kai 6 vauTnyo¢ Tpd¢ TO GKagog’ Kai yap We Toinua Ov, obK Iv xpiv yevn- 
tat. According to chap. 14, the Arians also attributed to him the following assertions : 
Oik dei Rv-6 Bed¢ TaTIHp, odK det HV 6 vid¢g’—dAN Hv rote 6te obk Hv. Comp. Martini 
Gesch. d. Dogma v. d. Gottheit Christi, $.198. Schleiermacher in his Zeitschrift, iii. 402. 
Baur’s Dreieinigkeit, i. 309. 

8 Fragments of his Aeyyoc Kai drodoyia, libb. iv., addressed to the-Roman Dionysius, 
preserved in Athanasius and Basil, are collected by Gallandius, iii. 495, Routh Reliq. Sacr. 
iii.-194 (in the second fragment of the first book, the variation in the text from Euthym. 
Zygab. Panoplia apud Gallandius, t. xiv. App. p. 118, is to be compared). Dionysius 
declares here, lib. i.: Od ydp qv bre 6 Ged¢ obk Hv TaTip. Then he asserts it is a fabrica 


‘tion of his opponents’*that he ever denied, tov Xpuoriv duoovovoy eivat TO OeG* ei yap 


kai TO.dvoua TovTS ont U7 evpyKévat, une’ aveyvoxévat Tov TOV dyiav ypagdav, adAa ye 


Ta émcyephuata pov Ta é&hc, Gd CeotwxHkact, Tie O.avolag Tabtys ObK amgdet. ery 


§ 63, note 19. Martini, S. 203, ff. 


* Photii Bibl. cod. 106: in his Hypotyposes vidv d& Aéyov, xtioua abtov éndeubied kat 
TOv LoytkGv povov ériotateiv. Respecting the origin of the Logos a fragment apud : 


Athanasius de Decretis Syn. Nicaenae, c. 25: Odx éwhév ric gory éhevpebeica 7 Tod viod 


oboia, ob68 éx un bvTwr ExeconyOn* AAG x THE TOD maTpo¢ oboiac éov, O¢ TOW dwTOE TO : 


érabyaopua, bc tdatog atuicg* (obTe yap Td dxabyacua, obTE a dtyig abté TO ddap éotiv, 
} abric, 6 HAL0¢ ode dAdOrpLov ° ) GAA dr6ppora THe Tod TaTpdC oboiag ob uepiopov bro- 
petvaonc Tie Tob maTpd¢ obciac. 

10 “Writings : Eic¢ "Opryévnv.rpoodwvytiKoc Kai mavnyupiKdc Adyoc. ’Extotuay Kavo 


Vik. a in Ang. Maj Spicilegium Rom. vol. iii. Two confessions of faith _ 


’ 


222 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I11.—A:D. 193-324. 


oscillate between entirely opposite modes of description.“ It is 
highly probable, also, that Hierax of Leontopolis, ‘at the end of 
this century, was formed in the school of Origen. His allegor- 
ical interpretation, his rejection of the resurrection of the body, 
and of sensual notions of a future life, as also his disapprobation 
_ of marriage and the use of flesh and wine, point rather to a 
_ maintenance of Origenist principles carried out to extremes, 
than to'a Manichaean origin, which latter Epiphanes has infer- 
red only from a few external points of resemblance.” At the 
end of this period appeared Methodius, bishop of Olympus’ (or 
Patara), afterward of Tyre (martyred 311) as a violent oppo- 
nent of Origen, defending in a work, epi dvacrdoews, the doc- 
trine of the resurrection of the present body, and in another, 
mepi TOV yevyTor, attacking the notion of an endless succession 
of worlds.’* - But on the other hand, Origen found warm de- 
fenders in Pamphilus (martyred 309) and Eusebius Pamphilt, 
both presbyters in Caesarea."* Among the multitude, report 
had often distorted already the peculiar principles of Origen, and 

by that means awakened blind hatred against him ;° but among 


have been also attributed to him, although without doubt they are supposititious, a short 
Symbolam which he is said to have received from the apostle John who appeared to him 
(Walchii Bibl. symbol. vetus, p. 14. Martini, S. 231),.and 7 cata pépoe rioric (i. e., ple- 
nior ac particulatim concepta, which was formerly known only in the Latin translation of 
Turrianus, and published in Greek by Sirmond in not. ad Facundam, x. 6, and in Maji 
Scriptt. vett. nova coll. vii. i. 170), whose genuineness Salig de Eutychianismo ante Euty- 
chen, p. 136, sought in vain to defend. See Martini, 8. 233. His life by Gregory Nyssene. 
Opp. omnia una cum vita, ed. G. Vossius. Mogunt. 1604, 4. 

11 Basilii M. Epist. 210 (al. 64) § 5: (Sabelliani) xa0jxav dé tiva welpav Ov émiotorfe, 
Kal xpoc Tov dudpuyov Hudv *“AvOiuov tov Tvavuev éxicxorov, O¢ dpa pnyopiov siméytog 
éy éxOécer nlorTewt, martépa Kai viov émevolg Hey elvat Ovo, broordoe 02 Ev. toito da, bre 
ob doypaTika¢ elpnTat, aan’ GywveoriKar év TH mpog AiAtavov duanéser, ovK Hdvvqbycav 
ovvideiv.— dd on Kal roAddg dv ebpouc éxet paves, Tae viv Toi¢ aipEeTiKoic weyioryny laxdv 
TapEexouevac, @¢ TO KTigua, Kai TO woinua, Kal et TL TOLODTOY. Martini, S. 233, ff. 

12 Only authority Epiphan. Haer. 67. Mosheim de Rebus Christ. ante Const, p: 903, ss. 

13 Fragments in Epiphan. Haer. 64. Photii Bibl. cod. 234-236, in Maji Scriptt. vett. 
nova coll. vii. i. 49, 92, 102. Walch’s Ketzerhist. vii. 404. In a later dialogue, Zévwy, he 
is said to have changed and become the admirer of Origen (Socrat. H. E. vi.'13). Other 
works: tepi abtegovciov. Symp.dec. virg. etc. Opp. ed. Fr. Combefisius. Paris. 1644. fol 

14 Pamphilus wrote in captivity. See Apologia pro Origene, in five books, to which 
Eusebius added a sixth book.- Only the first book is extant in Rufinus’s Latin translation, 
and Greek fragments in Photius Cod. 118 (see Origenis Opp. ed de la Rue, t. iv. App. p. 
17.). Pamphilus and Eusebius published conjointly the hexaplar Septuagint—Pamphilus’s 
library in Caesarea. 

15 Pamphili Apologiae praefatio ad Confessores ad metalla Palaestinae damnatos : Nihil 
mirum, fratres, videmini mihi esse perpessi, quod ita vos Origenis subterfugit intellectus, 
ut vos quoque ea aestimetis de“illo, quae et alii nonnulli: qui sive per imperitiam sui, qua 
non valent sensus ejus altitudinem contueri, sive pravitate mentis, qua studium gerunt non 

. “7 





CHAP. IIL—CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. 1.IN THE EAST. § 65. 993 


the learned, respect for this great man.was pretty general. | 


Particularly in Egypt, he appears ‘to ek enjoyed undivided 
esteem.’° 


§ 65. 
OTHER DISTINGUISHED TEACHERS OF THE EASTERN CHURCH. 


While at Alexandria Scripture interpretation was made to 
subserve the purpose of speculation, we find in Syria and the 
neighboring provinces, favored by the linguistic relations of 
these lands, the first traces of that more independent historico- 
grammatical and critical treatment of the Scriptures, by which 
the east was so much distinguished in the fourth and fifth cen- 
turies.' Of such writers we are acquainted, though very imper- 
fectly, with Julius Africanus in Nicopolis (Emmaus), probably 

a presbyter (about 230), a friend of Origen, the first Christian 
chronographer ;? and two presbyters of Antioch, Dorotheus 


solum dicta ejus incusare, verum etiam adversus eos, qui haec legunt, hostiles inimicitias 
’ -gumere, tam pertinaciter id agentes, ut nulla prorsus venia eos dignos haberi putent, ne ea 
quidem quam impertire solent, verbi gratia, his qui vel Graecorum saecularium libros, vel 
nonnunquam etiam haereticorum, percunctandi atque agnoscendi studio decurrunt. Mira- 
mur in tantum temeritatis aliquos esse provectos, ut qui se ita humilitate judicat, adstru- 
ant, quod ab illis dicta ejus vel libri pro sermonibus apostolicis vel dictis propheticis 
habeantur, aut quod ille ipse vel Prophetis vel Apostolis ab aliquo comparetur. Maultos 
invenias, quos si interroges, in quibus libris aut in quibus locis dicta sint haec, quae arguunt, 
confitentur, se quidem nescire ea, de quibus affirmant, nec legisse unquam, audisse autem 
alios dicentes. ‘The calumnies which Pamphilus refuted are these (cap. 5): Prima, ille est, 
quod aiunt, eum innatum dicere filium Dei. Secunda, quod dicunt per prolationem, secun- 
dum Valentini fabulas, in subsistentiam venisse filium Dei dicere. Tertia, quae his omni- 
bus valde contraria est, quod dicunt eum, secundum Arteman vel Paulum Samosatenum, 
purum hominem, id est, non etiam Deum dicere Christum filium Dei. Post (iv.), ista est, 
quae istis omnibus adversatur (caeca enim est malitia), quod dicunt eum dicere, dox7joet, i. e., 

putative tantum et per allegoriam, non etiam secundum ea, quae per historiam referuntur, . 
«gesta esse omnia, quae a Salvatore gesta sunt: Alia (v.), quoque criminatio est, qua asse- 
rant, eum duos Christos praedicare. - Addunt (vi.), illud quoque, quod historias corporales, 

-quae per omnem §. Scripturam referantur,de gestis Sanctorum, penitus deneget. Sed et 
(vii.), de resurrectione mortuorum, et de impiorum poenis non levi impugnant eum calum- 
nia, velut negantem peccatoribus inferenda esse supplicia. Quidam vero (viii.), disputatione 
‘éjus vel opiniones, quas de animae statu vel dispensatione disseruit, culpant. Ultima vero, 
omnium (ix.), est criminatio illa, quae cum omni infamatione dispergitur, werevowpaTace- 
@¢, i. e., quod humanas animas in muta animalia, vel serpentes vel pecudes asserat trans- 

mutari post mortem, et quod etiam ipsae mutorum animalium animae rationabiles sint. ° 

16 In Justiniani Epist. ad Mennam (apud Mansi, ix. p. 504) very unfavorable statements 
are made respecting Origen by Bishop Peter of Alexandria (martyred 311) ; but they have 

been borrowed from the uncertain Actis Petri Alex. See Tillemont Mémoires, t. iii- p. 589. 

+ Manter on the Antiochenian school in Staudlin’s and Tzschirner’s Archiv. f; Kuchen- 
gesch. Bd. 1. Biy.S.1, ff. -: 
<2  Xpoumpanen. mere, onovdéiquata—E1a7023) mept Ti¢ Kate Lodlning ioropiag 
aa 


224 | FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. i93-324. - 


(about 290),® and Lucian, who suffered suitpitic in Witte 
dia, ap. 311.4 Because Ariws and his most distinguished 


~ friends’ proceeded from. the school founded by [none at 


Antioch; the latter has often in later times been considered the 


'- father of Arianism.® Of the critical merits which belonged to 


him and his cotemporary Hesychius,’ in settling the text of the - 
Holy Scriptures, after the example of Origen, it is to be regret- 


_ted that very imperfect accounts have been preserved.* | 


_ To this oriental literature appears also to belong most nearly 
the literary labors of Hippolytus (about 240).° 


(together with the reply of Origen appended to tlie Dial. c.. Marcionitas,.ed.. Wetstein)— 
*"ExtoroAy mpd ’Aptoreidnv (on the genealogies of Christ in Matthew and Luke partly 
preserved in Euseb. H. E.i.c.7; another fragment, ex. Mss. Vindob: et Coisl., first printed 
in Routh Reliqu. Sacr. ii. p:114). All these remains in Rovth, 1. c. p. 105, ss. Later ori- 


‘ental writers also attribute to him a Comm. in Evang. Assemani Bibl. Orient. p. 129, 158. 


3 Euseb. vii. 32, 1: Adyoc avijp. —orhbKahoc 0 obtog rept Ta Oeia yeyovac, kai ti¢- 
‘EBpaiwv émeuenjOn yaattng’ &¢ kai abraic taig ‘EBpaikaic ypadaic éxiotnudévec évrvy- 
xavew. hv 0 obtog Tév wadrota tAevOepiny [xaidecdv] xporaideiacg te THe Ka” "EA- 
Anvac obx duotpoc. § 2: Todbrov [uy] uEetpiwg Tig ypadic én tite éxxAnotac dinyovupévov 
KaTyKotoaev. 

* Euseb. viii. 13,ix.6. "Avip ta wdvta dprotoc Biw Te éyxpatn¢ Kal Toi¢ lepoic wabyj- 


“pact ovyKexpornuévoc. Hieronymus Catal. c.77: Lueianus, vir disertissimus, Antiochenae 


Ecclesiae presbyter, tantum in Scripturarum studio laboravit, ut usque nunc quaedam ex- 


- emplaria Scriptararuam Lucianea nuncupentur. Feruntur ejus de fide libelli, et breves ad 


nonnullos epistolae. . 

5 Theybishops Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon, Theognis of Nicaea, bodes 
of Antioch, Antonius. of Tarsus, &c. See Philostorgius, ii. 14. “ 

& Alexander bishop of Alexandria, writes of him (about 320, in Theodoreti Hist. eccl. 
i. 3): “Ov (abdAov tov Zavocaréa) dradeSipuevoc Aovkiavog, dxoovvdywyog Euewve TpLav 
émiokovwv ToAveteic ypdvouc. Ov THC dosBeiag Tiy Tpbya &ppodnKétec—"Apetoc Te Kai 
*AyiA2Gc, x. T. 2. The Eusebians appealed to a confession of faith by Lucian, Sozomen, 
iii. 5. Still he is considered by Eusebius, Athanasius, Jerome, Chrysostom (comp. his 
panegyric on him, tom. i. Hom. 46), etc., as a holy martyr, and is so regarded by the 
Romish church at this day. 

7 Probably the Egyptian Bishop Hesychius, who, according to Eusebius, H. E. viii. 13, 4, 


_ suffered martyrdom inthe year 311. 


8 Hieron. adv. Rufin. lib. ii. (ed. Martian. t. iv. p. ii. p. 425): Alexandria et Aegyptus in 
Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem Constantinopolis usque ad Antiochiam Lu- 
ciani Martyris exemplaria probat. Mediae inter has provinciae Palaestinos codices legunt 
quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverant; totusque orbis haec inter 
se trifaria varietate compugnat. Comp. Eichhorn’s Einleit. indas A. T. (4te Aufl. 1823) 
Bd. 1,8. 506, ff. . Hieron. praef. in iv. Evang. ad Damasum: De novo nune loquor Testa- 


‘ mento. Praetermitto eos codices, quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos, paucorum, 
hhominum asserit perversa contentio: quibus utique nec in toto veteri Instrumento post Ixx. 


interpretes emendare quid licuit: nec in Nova profuit emendasse, cum multarum gentium 
linguis Scriptura ante translata doceat, falsa esse, quae addita sunt.. Comp. Hug’s Einl. 
in d. N. T. (3te Aufl. 1826) Th. 1. S. 196, ff. 231, f£ © 

-® Concerning him and his numerous writings, among which the treatise tepi rod. dcya, - 


which set forth the first Canon paschalis (see. on it Ideler’s Chronologie, ii. 213), was the . 


Most important, see Eusebius, vi. 20, 22. Hieronymus in Catal. c. §1. Both call him 
bishop, but do not know in what place. Jerome also designates him as a martyr, Comm. 


# 


OHAP. IIl.—CATHOL1I0 THEOLOGY. II. IN THE WEST. §66. 295 


Tl. THEOLOGY IN THE WEST. 
§ 66. 


The Latin church, which had been hitherto little more than 
an appendage to the Gicek; now attained to miore independence 
and individuality, after it had materially enlarged itself, and 
since the Latin language had been more adapted, particularly 


ad Matth. praef., and so also later writers call him Episcopum et Martyreni. Pradentzes rept 
_ oTegavev hymn. xi. relates the martydom of one Hippolytus. The same person was a. 
presbyter among the Novatians, stood in high repute with his own party (the heathea 
called out, v. 80: Ipsum Christicolis esse caput populi, but in view of death he repented of 
his taking part in the schism, and exhorted his own disciples, who accompanied him in great 
numbers, to return to the catholic communion (v. 27, ss.). Thus he became a Cathoiic mar-. 
tyr at Portus Romanus (probably under Valerian, 258), and his bones were dug up in the 
vicinity of Rome (v.151). At the time of Prudentius a splendid martyrium was here dedi- | 
cated to him (v. 183), and his memory was celebrated on the ides of August (v. 232). In the 
eighth century Hadrian I. restored this Coemeterium b. Hippolyti Martyris (Liber pontifi- 
ealis in vita Hadr. I.) At the same place the statue of Hippolytus was found, 1551, on 
whose cathedra the Canon Paschalis and a catalogue of his writings are inscribed. It 
belongs probably to the sixth century (Beschreibung der Stadt Rom von Platner, Bunsen 
Gerhard, u. Rostell, ii. ii. 329), and proves'that at that time the ancient writer and the 
martyr were looked upon as the samé person. In the later martyrologies a fragment of 
genuine tradition may be preserved concerning him. Usuardus, Ado, Notker, and others, 
have the following on the 30th January :--Apud Antiochiam passio b. Hippolyti Martyris, 
qui Novati schismate aliquantulum deceptus, operante gratia Christi correctus, ad carita- 
tem ecclesiae rediit, pro qua et in qua illustre martyrium consummavit. Petrus Damianus 
lib. i. Epist. 9, ad Nicolaum ii. says: Beatus quoque Nonus Martyr, qui et Hippolytus— 
postquam denique nonnullos sanctarum expositionum libros luculenter explicuit, tandem 
Ep%scopatum deseruit, de Autiochenis partibus, unde erat oriundus, abscessit, Romanos 
fines appetiit; and-then relates his death and burial in Portus Romanus. The result of 
our inquiry into the history of Hippolytus may be stated: Novatian found great favor par- 
ticularly in Antioch. The bishop Fabius, and many others were friendly to him (Euseb. 
vi. 44, 46, see below, §72, note 8). One of them, the presbyter Hippolytus, determined to 
travel in person to Rome. Probably, since he traveled through Alexandria, he is the same 
Hippolytus who took with him to Rome the émiaroA) deaxovixy of Dionysius of Alexan-— 
dria (Euseb. vi. 46. Eusebius here names him without any other specifying cireumstance, 
after having spoken before of only one Hippolytus). In Rome he attached himself to the 
Noyatians, and attained to great repute. The separation from the church, however, made 
him suspicious, until the prospect of immediate death decided him to return to the catholic ~ 
_ church. His memory was celebrated at Antioch, his native city, on the 30th January ; at 
‘Rome on the 13th August. The later martyrologies have adopted both days, and so made 
two Hippolytuses out of one. The great reputation which Hippolytus enjoyed as an e¢- 
clesiastical writer misled Eusebius, when he represents/him to have been a bishop. Je- 
- rome followed him in this particular. The elerk who was martyred at: Portus Romanus” 
may have been previously a bishop somewhere in the East. Although, however, Pru- 
dentius correctly designates Hippolytus a presbyter, yet all later writers call him bishop, 
and conjecture different places where he was such. The Greeks naturally looked for this 
place in the part where he had autfored, and regarded him sometimes as a bishop of Rome; 


~ VOL. 3s —15. 


226 FIRST PERIOD —DIV. HL—A.D. 193-324. 


“by Tertullian, to the expression of Christian ideas, and. had 
become the usual written language of the western Christians. 
As the speculative tendency of the Greeks prevailed in the 
Greek church, so the practical character of the Romans gave 
expression to itself in the Latin church, in the inclination to 
cultivate chiefly ecclesiastical government and law. While 


the Greek language now disappeared from the western church, © 
the lively interest of the latter in the new developments of 
the theology of the east also ceased. As the Greek theology 
of the second century had been understood and represented 
with material grossness in the writings of Tertullian, so was 
it held fast in the western church, in the third century. Phi- 


after the example of Leontius; sometimes as a bishop of Portus Romanus, according 
to the Paschal Chronicle, Georgius Syncellus, Zonaras, and Nicephorus Callistus. The 
Romish bishop Gelasius, misled by Rufinus’s translation of Euseb. vi. 20 (Beryllus—epis- 
copus fuit apud Bostram, Arabiae urbem maximam. Erat et nihilominus Hippolytus, qui 
et ipse aliquanta scripta dereliquit, Episcopus), thought that he was a metropolitan of 
Arabia, but maintained at the same time as an indubitable fact that he had come to Rome, ° 
and suffered martyrdom there. (The later legend dressed out this with other additions : 
Petrus Dam.1.c,: Qui, postquam triginta millia Saracenoram ad Christi fidem efficacissima 
praedicatione convertit, etc.) In order to find a middle way between these different accounts 
Steph. le Moyne conjectured that he was bishop of Portus Romanus (Aden, in Arabia Felix, 
and in this several have followed him; but this attempt‘to reconcile errors could only be a 
new error itself, since Christianity came for the first time into Arabia Felix in the fourth 
century. With the results already given, agrees very well what may be gathered from 
the writings of Hippolytus.. 1. Novatianism.is as little found in them as in the works of 
Novatian himself. They were probably composed earlier. 2. According to Phot, Cod. 121, 
Hippolytus’s ctvtayua xara aipécewy was an extract from the work of Irenaeus. But 
Photius infers too much from a passage of that writing, when he makes him a disciple of 
Irenaeus. 3. Jerome, Cat. c. 61, enumerates among the works of Hippolytus rpocouiAiav 
‘de laude Domini Salvatoris, in qua praesente Origene se loqui in Ecclesia significat. 
(What follows: In hujus aemulationem Ambrosius —cohortatus est Origenem, in scripturas 
Commentarios scribere, is founded merely on a misunderstanding of the expression é& 
éxetvov scil. ypévov, which forms a transition in Euseb. vi. c. 22 to chapter 23.) 4. The 
numerous exegetical writings (see apud Jerome) point to the east. 5. The *AroAoyia 
bép Tod KaTa "lodvvqv evayyediov Kal Groxadtpewc and rept xaptozdtwy, marked upon 
the cathedra, are either directed against the Alogi in Asia Minor (§ 48, note 15), or against 
the opponents of the Montanists in Rome (§ 59, note 9). For this last supposition appears 
to speak the notice of Ebedjesu (t 1318, in Assemani Bibl. orient. t. iii. p. i., that among the 
Chaldeans Hippolyti capita adv. Caium were in existence. (Comp. Licke’s Einl. in d. 
Offenb. Job. S. 316.) C. Gu. Haenell de Hippolyto comm. Gottingae 1838. 4 (looks upon 
him has-a bishop of Bostra). E.J. Kimmel de Hippolyti vita et scriptis, p. i. Jenae. 1839: 
8 (according to him, Hippolytus was an oriental, educated in Alexandrian learning (7), and 
bishop of Portus Romanus at Rome). L. F. W. Seinecke uber d. Leben u. die Schriften 
des Bisch. Hippolytus, in Illgen’s Zeitschr. f. d. hist. Theol. 1842, iii. 48 (he also supposes 
him bishop of Portus Romanus). Hipp. Op.ed.J.A. Fabricius. Hamb. 1716, 18. 2 voll. fol. 
1 Respecting him see above, § 59. He wrote in Greek, de baptismo (Tert. de Bapt. c. 
15), de spectaculis (de Cor. mil. c. 6), and de virginibus velandis (de Virg. vel.c. 1). None 
of these works are now extant. M. E. F. Leopold saber die Ursachen der verdorbenen 


CHAP. Ill CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. IL IN THE WEST. § 66. 927 


-.losophy was too much hated by the. westerns,? and their in- 
terpretation of Scripture, from ignorance of the original lan- 
guages, was too imperfect to enable them to develop the Gre- 
cian theology intelligently. Hence there arose in the occident-~ 
al church an aversion to all theological speculation,*? and such 
a doctrinal stability that the influence of the Greek church 
could produce only negative and unconscious advances. It is 
true that Montanism, having continued for a long time un- 
molested in the west, had been condemned, as far as its pecu- 
liar doctrines were concerned, in the beginning of this period; 
but its spirit had found so firm a sympathy in the disposi- 
tion of the westerns to cultivate external ecclesiastical ordi- 
nances, that its continuance may be still recognized in a sen- 
suous acceptation of Christianity, and the high value set upon 
external discipline. Thascius Caectlius Cyprianus, at first a 
rhetorician in Carthage (converted to Christianity from 245, 
bishop at Carthage 248, suffered martyrdom 258), left behind 
several small works, apologetic and admonitory, and many 


2 Although they had unconsciously received many Platonic ideas in the Greek theology 
of the second’century. Tertullianus de Praescr. haeret.c. 7: Quid ergo Athenis et Hiero- 
solymis? quid Academiae et Ecclesiae? quid haereticis et Christianis? Nostra institutio 
de porticu Salomonis est: qui et ipse tradiderat, dominum in simplicitate cordis esse quae- 
rendum. Viderint, qui stoicum, et platonicum, et dialecticum Christianismum protulerunt. 
Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum Jesum, nec inquisitione post Evangelium. 
Cum credimus, nihil desideramus ultra credere. Hoc enim prius credimus, non esse, quod 
ultra credere debemus. De animac. 3: Philosophis—patriarchis, ut ita dixerim, haereti- 
corum. De carne Christi c. 5: Natus est dei filius: non pudet, quia pudendum est. Et 
mortuus est dei filius: prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est. Et sepultas, resurrexit: 
certum est, quia impossibile. Cf. de anima lib., Apologet. c. 46, adv. Marcion. v. c. 19, de 
testimonio animae, c.1. Ritter’s Gesch. d. christl. Philos. i. 362. 

3 Tertull. de Praescript. c. 7 (see note 2). Cap. 9: Unius porro et certi instituti infinita 
inquisitio non potest esse: quaerendum est, donec invenias: et credendum, ubi inveneris: 
et nihil amplius nisi custodiendum, quod credidisti: dum insuper credis, aliud non esse 
credendum. Cap. 14: Caeterum manente forma ejus (regulae fidei) in suo ordine, quan- 
tum libet quaeras et tractes, et omnem libidinem curiositatis effundas, si quid tibi videtur 
vel ambiguitate pendere, vel obscuritate obumbrari. Est utique frater aliquis doctor, 
gratia scientiae donatus: est aliquis inter exercitatos conversatus aliquid tecum, curiosius 
tamen, quaerens: novissime ignorare melius est, ne quod non debeas noris. Fides, inquit, 
tua te salvum fecit (Luc. xviii. 42): non exercitatio scripturarum.’ Fides in regula posita 
est, habens legem et salutem de observatione legis: exercitatio autem in curiositate 
consistit, habens gloriam solam de peritiae studio. Cedat curiositas fidei, cedat gloria 

_ saluti. Certe aut non obstrepant, aut quiescant. Adversus regulam. nihil scire omnia 
scire est. A decided rejection of all secret tradition, ibid. c. 22: Solent dicere (haeretici), 
non omnia Apostolos scisse: eadam agitati dimentia, qua rursus convertunt, omnia quidem 
Apostolos scisse, sed non omnia omnibus tradidisse. In utroque Christum reprehensioni 
injicientes, qui aut minus instructos, aut parum simplices Apestolos miserit. Cf cap. 25 
and 26. at 


228 _. FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IL.—A.D. 193-32. 


letters which refer for the most part to matters of church govy- 
ernment and discipline.‘ There is still preserved a perfectly 
orthodox work de Trinitate,® by his eotemporary Novatian, a 
Roman presbyter and founder of a sect. Eighty moral precepts 
in verse by-the African Commodianus (about 270) are not un- 
important in the history of morals.’ - Arnobius, a rhetorician in 
Sicea, formerly an enemy to Christianity, wrote (about 303) 
_his Disputationes adv. Gentes libb. vii.’ His pupil in rhetoric, 
L. Caelius Lactantius Firmianus (Cicero Christianus) an Ital- 
ian by birth, wrote in Nicomedia, during the Diocletian perse- 
cution, his Institutionum Divinarum libb. vii.2 He was after- 
ward preceptor of Crispus, eldest son of Constantine the Great 
(+ about 330). 
The tendency of the western church to a stable unity could 
effect so little in the province of dogmatic theology, that even 
gnostic doctrines were still in many instances tolerated as 


* Vita et passio Cypriani per Pontium ejus diaconum scripta, in Ruinart, and prefixed 
to the editions of Cyprian. Jo. Pearsonii Annales Cyprianici, prefixed to Fell’s edition. 
Pradentii Marani vita S. Cypr. prefixed to Baluzius’s edition. La vie de St. Cyprien (par 
Jacq. Gervaise). Paris. 1717. 4. Ph. C. Cyprianus, dargestellt von D. F. W, Rettberg. 
Gottingen. 1831.8. Bahr’s christl. romische Theologie, 8.50. Mdhler’s Patrologie, i. 809.— 
His works: In the year 246: Lib. ad Donatum.—247: de Idolorum vanitate.—248: Tes- 
_timoniorum ad Quirinum adv. Judaeos, libb. 3; de Habitu virginum.—25t: de Unitate 
ecclesiae; de Lapsis.—252: de Oratione dominica; de Mortalitate; Exhort. ad Martyrium. 
—-253: Lib. ad Demetrianum.—254: de Opere et Eleemosynis.—255: de Bono Patientiae- 
—256: de Zelo et Livore. Besides these 83 letters, Opp. ed. Nic. Rigaltius. Paris. 1648. 
fol. Joannes Fell. Oxon. 1682. (Bremae. 1690.. Amstel. 1700.) fol. Steph. Baluzius. 
Paris. 1726. (Venet. 1728.) fol. Opp. genuina cur. D. J. H. Goldhorn. P. ii. Lips. 1838. 
39, 8 
5 Ed. Ed. Welchmann. €@xon. 1724. (iter. 1728.) 8. Also appended to Rigalt’s edition 
of Tertullian. Bahr, 8. 47. 

6 Instructiones, ed. Nic. Rigaltius. Tulli Leuc. 1650.4. Bibl. PP. Lugd. t. xxvii. p, 
12, C. 8. Schurzfleisch. Viteberg. 1705. 

7 Hieron. Cat. 79, in Chronico ad ann. xx. imperii Constantini. His work ed. cum 
recensione viri celeberrimi (Cl. Salmasii) et integris omnium commentariis.. Lugd. Bat. 
1651. 4—recogn. Jo. Conr. Orellius, P. ii. Lips. 1816, Additamentum. Lips. 1817. 8. 
Des Africaners Arnob. 7 Biicher wider die Heiden, iibers u. erlautert v. E. A. v. Besnard. 
Landshut. 1842.8. P.K. Meyer sa ratione et argamento apologetici Arnobiani. Havniae. 
1815. 8. Bahr, S. 66. 

8 Besides this: Epitome div. institt., de opificio Dei, de ira Dei- In a MS. Colbert. 
Baluzius found Lucii Cecilii hber de Mortibus persecutoram, and first published it in 
_Miscellan. tom. ii. p. 1 (1679). He correctly pronounced it the book of Lactantius, which 
Jerome mentions, Cat. c. 80, as de Persecutione lib., and therefore it has been taken into 
all the later editions of Lactantius. Against le Nourry (Lucii Cecilii lib. de Mortibus 
persec. ad MS. denuo emendatus, acc. dissert. de libri auctore. Paris. 1710. 8), who wishes 
to distinguish this Lucius Cecilius from Lactantius, see particularly N.de Lestocq disquis, 
in the edition of le Brun prefixed to tom. ii. p. 48, ss. Opp.ed.J.L. Biinemann. Lips. 
1739. 8. Jo. Bapt. le Bran et Nic. Lenglet Dufresnoy.. Paris. 1748. Tom. ii.4. O. P 
Fritzsche. P.ii. Lips. 1842, 44.8. Bahr, 8. 72. 


CHAP. III—CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. “fl. IN THE WEST. § 68. 229 


harmless. It is true that Hermogenes, when-he asserted the 
eternity of matter too strenuously, found an opponent in Ter- 
tullian ;° but Arnobius gave utterance to Platonic and gnostic 
opinions respecting the soul and evil, without being molested ;!° 
and his disciple Lactantius taught a suspicious dualism,'' with- 
out being attacked on account of it. As this indicates a 
certain theological rudeness in the western theology, so is the 
same peculiarity also exhibited in the sensuous mode of treat-’ 
ing the traditional doctrines. Even in definitions of the es- 
sence of God, the western writers of this period are not able 
to disentangle themselves from the forms of a sensuous concep- 
tion. They thought of the Deity himself as corporeal, and of 
the soul as literally his breath.’? They also firmly maintained | 


9 Tertullianus adv. Hermogenem. Ritter’s Gesch. d..christl. Philos. i. 178. 

10 For example, Arnobius, ii. c. 15: Nihil est, quod nos fallat,—quod a novis quibusdam 
dicitur viris,—animas immortales esse, Deo rerum ac principi gradu proximas dignitatis 
genitore illo ac patre prolatas, etc. Cap.62: Servare animas alius nisi Deus omnipotens 
non potest: nec praeterea quisquam est, qui longaevas facere, perpetuitatis possit et spirit- 
am subrogare. (Comp. Platonis Timaeus, ed. Bip. p. 325. Justinus, Tatianus, Theophilus, © 
see Miinscher’s Dogmengesch. Bd. 2,8. 101, f£)—Cap. 46, it is called immanis et scelerata 
persuasio, ut—Deus—aliquid fecerit claudum: and hence it is inferred, ut in saerilegae 
crimen impietatis incurrat, quisquis ab eo conceperet hominem esse prognatum. Cap. 36: 
- Discite ab eo, qui novit et protulit in medium, Christo, non esse animas regis maximi filias, 
nec ab eo, quemadmodum dicitur, generatas coepisse se nosse ;—sed alterum quempiam 
genitorum his esse, dignitatis et poetentiae gradibus satis plurimis ab. Imperatore disjune- 
tum, ejus tamen ex aula et eminentium nobilem sublimitate natalium (doubtless the 
Logos). Cap. 47: Non enim, si negemus, muscas, scarabeos, et cimices, nitedulas, cur- 
culiones, et tineas omnipotentis esse opus regis, sequaciter postulandum a nobis est, ut 
quis ea fecerit, institueritque dicamus.. Possimus enim nulla cum reprehensione nescire, 
quis et illis originem dederit, et obtinere, non esse Deo a superiore prolata tam supervacua, 
tam vana, tam ad nuilas pertinentia rationes, quinimo aliquando et noxia, et necessarias 
importantia laesiones. Cf. cap. 48, 58, 61, 62. Comp. above, § 44, notes 4,5. On the the- 
ology of Arnobius see Meyer de ratione Apol. Arnob. p. 278. 

1 Lactant. Institutt. div. ii. 8: Deus—antequam ordiretar hoc opus mundi, produxit 
similem sui spiritum, qui esse virtutibus Dei Patris praeditus. Deinde fecit alterum, in 
quo indoles divinae stirpis non permansit. Itaque suapte invidia tanquam veneno infectus 
est, et ex bono ad malum transcendit, suoque arbitrio, quod illi a Deo liberam datum 
fuerat, contrarium sibi nomen ascivit. Unde apparet, cunctorum malorum fontem esse 
livorem. Invidit enim illi antecessori suo, qui Deo Patri perseverando cum probatus, tum 

etiam carus est.. Hunc ergo ex bono per se malum effectum Graeci dud8vAov appellant, 
- nds criminatorem’ vocamus, quod crimina, in quae ipse illicit, ad Deum deferat. “God 
divided the dominion of the world with him, so that there fell to his share occidens,, 
septentrio, tenebrae, frigus, etc.,c. 9. H.J.Alt de Dualismo Lactantiano diss. Vratislav. _ 
1839. 8. 

22 Tertull. adv. Prax. 7: Quis enim negavit, deum corpus esse, etsi deus spiritus est? 
Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie. Sed et si invisibilia illa, qaaecunque sunt, 
habent apud deum et suum corpus et suam formam, per quae soli deo visibilia sunt: 

quanto magis quod ex ipsius substantia missum est (namely the Adyoc), sine substantia. 

‘non erit? ©. 5: Es animal rationale, a rationali scilicet artifice non tantum factus, sed 

etiam ex substantia ipsivs animatus. Lactant. de ira Dei, c. 2: Aliter de unica illa 
é 


230 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IIf.—A.D. 193-324. 


the resurrection of the same body, the millennium, which appears 
here almost in its most sensual form,! the condemnation of all 
who are not Christians, and the eternity of hell punishments. 
With regard to the Logos, they retained the old emanistic no- 
tions, both as to its origin, which was conceived for the most part 
in a very coarse form," and also as to its relation to the Father.’*. 


majestate sentiunt, quam veritas habet, qui aut figuram negant habere ullam Deum, aut 
nullo affectu commoveri patant (he holds the doctrine of God’s wrath to be a fundamental 
truth of religion). In this the Stoics had set the example, who regarded every thing which | 
had efficiency as body. Comp. Tennemann’s Gesch. d. Philol. iv. 39, 283. Seneca Epist. 
106, 117, quod facit, corpus est. The soul was universally looked upon as corporeal, with 
_ the exception of Origen. _ 
13 Commodiani Instruct. 43, 44,-80, ex. gr. Instr. 44:— 

De coelo descendet civitas in anastasi prima,— 

Venturi sunt Hli quoque sub Antichristo qui vineunt 

Robusta martyria, et ipsi toto tempore vivunt,— 

Et generant ipsi per annos mille nubentes. 


Tustr. 80:— 
Digniores, stemmate et generati praeclaro, 
Nobilesque viri sub Antichristo devicto, 
Ex praecepto Dei rursum viventes in aevo 
Mille quidem annis ut serviant sanctis et Alto, 
Sub jugo servili, ut portent victualia collo, 
Ut iterum autem judicentur regno finito: 

‘Comp: Lactant. Institutt. div. vii. c. 14-25. Among other things he says, c. 14: Tum qui 
erunt in corporibus vivi, non morientur, sed per eosdem mille annos infinitam multitudinem 
generabunt, et erit soboles eorum sancta et Deo cara. Qui autem ab inferis suscitabuntur, 
ii praeerunt viventibus velut jadices. Gentes vero non extinguentur omnino: sed quaedam 
relinquentur in victoriam Dei,-ut triamphentur a justis, ac subjugentur perpetuse servituti. 

™ Cf. Lactant. Instit. divin. iv. §: Quomodo igitur procreavit? Primam nec sciri a 
quoquam possunt, nec narrari opera divina,.sed tamen sanctae literae docent, in quibus 
cautum est, illum Dei filiam esse Dei sermonem, itemque ceteros angelos Dei spiritus 
esse. Nam sermo est spiritus cum voce aliquid significante prolatus. Sed tamen quoniam 
spiritus et sermo diversis partibus proferuntur, siquidem spiritus naribus, ore sermo pro- 
cedit; magna inter hun¢ Dei filium ceterosque angelos differentia est. Illi enim ex Deo 
taciti spiritus exierunt, qui non ad doctrinam Dei tradendam, sed ad ministerium crea- 
bantur. Ile vero quum sit et ipse spiritus, tamen cum voce ac sono ex Dei ore processit. 
sicut verbum, &c.—Merito igitur sermo et verbum Dei dicitur, quia Deus procedentem de 
ore suo vocalem spiritam, quem non utero sed mente conceperat, inexcogitabili quadam 
majestatis sua virtute ac potentia, in effigiem, quae proprio sensu ac sapientia vigeat, 
comprehendit, et alios item spiritus suos in angelos figuravit. 

15 Tertull. adv. Hermogenem, c. 3: Et pater deus est, et judex deus est: non tamen 
ideo pater et judex semper, quia deus semper. Nam nec pater potuit esse ante filium, 
nec judex ante delictum. Fuit autem tempus, cum ei delictum et filius non fuit, quod 
judicem et qui patrem dominum faceret. Cap. 18: Ut (Deus sophiam) necessariam sensit 
ad opera mundi, statim eam condit et generat in semetipso. Adv. Praxean, ec. 26: Nulla 
res alicujus ipsa est, cujus est—Et ideo spiritus Deus, et sermo Deus, quia ex Deo, non 
tamen ipse ex quo est. Quodsi deus, Dei tanquam substantiva res, non erit ipse Deus 
(air60co¢): sed hactenus deus, quia ex ipsius Dei substantia, qua et substantiva res est, — 
et ut portio aliqua totius.—Patrem et ipse adorat—ignorans et ipse diem et horam ultimam, 
‘soli patri notam: disponens regnum discipulis, quo modo et sibi dispositum dicit a patre, 
etc. Adv. Marcionem, ii. c. 27: Quaecunqne exigitis Deo digna, habebuntur in patre 

: invisibili, incongressibili, et placido, et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum Deo. Quaecunque 


CHAP. IV.—ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. § 67. 231 


A remarkable stage of development as concerns this dogma, is 
exhibited by Dionysius, bishop of Rome (259-270) whose 
education was Grecian, and who unites the Origenist idea of an 
eternal generation of the Logos with those emanistic notions.’ 





FOURTH CHAPTER. 


ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. 
§ 67. 


The changes in ecclesiastical life originated especially from 
certain ideas, the germs of which appeared in the second cen- 
tury, though not completely developed till the third. The idea 
of one catholic church out of which there is no salvation, re- 
ceived its full development from Oyprian, and strove to give 


autem ut indigna reprehenditis, deputabuntur in filio, et viso, et audito, et congresso, 
arbitro patris et ministro, etc. Comp. Martini Gesch. d. Dogma v. d. Gottheit Christi in 
d. vier ersten Jahr. S. 100, ff. With Tertullian agree Cyprian (see Martini, S. 248, ff), 
Novatian (1. c. S. 257, ff.), Lactantius (I: c. S. 268, ff.). 

16 Dionysii Rom. Adv. Sabellianos fragmentum (apud Athanasius de Decretis Nicaen. 
syn. ec. 26: also in Constant. Epist. Rom. Pont. ed. Schoenemann, p. 194, ss. Routh. : 
Reliqu. Sacr. iii. p. 175, ss.). First of all he rejects rod¢ dtaipodvtac Kai xatatéuvovtac 
—rTHv povapyiav etic tTpeic duvapuetc Tivadc Kai wepeptouévac brooTacerc Kai OedtnTac Tpeic, 
and asserts in opposition: ‘Hvéctat yap dviyxn TO Ge@ Tv bdwv Tov Oeiov Aédyov' 
éudtroxupeiy 08 TO GeO Kai évdrattéobar Sei 76 Gytov mvebua~ dn Kai THY Oeiav Tpidda 
eic Eva, Gorep cig Kopveny tiva (Tov Oedv Tv dAwy Tov mavToKpdTopa Aéyw) ovyKedadiat- 
otobai te kai ovvéyecOat rdoa dvdyxn. Then he censures trove roinua tov vidv eivat 
dogdlovrac, kai yeyovévac Tov Kiplov, Sorep év te bvTw¢ yevouévav, vouiGovtac.—Bado- 
dnuov obv ob Td TUXOY, uéytoTOV u2v OdV, YEetpoToinrov TpdToVv TLVa Aéyerv TOV Koptor. 
Ei yap yéyovev vide, Av 6te obk Hv* det O& Hv, el ye év TH TaTpi EoTLV, O¢ abTéc Oyot, © 
Kal el Adyoc Kai codia cal déivauic 6 Xpioté6¢.—taita dé dvvduetc ovcat Tod Oeod Tvyxdv- 
ovetv* ei toivuy yéyover 6 vloc¢, Av OTe obK HY TabTa* Hv dpa Katpoc, 6TE Ywpi¢ TobTwY 
qv 6 Oe6c* atoxérarov 62 totro. The expression xipiog éxticé we apynv 60dv abrod, 
Prov. viii. 22, means: éxéoryce Toic bx’ abtod yeyovdowy épyore, yeyovoct dé dv abtod 
708 viod.—'Q prboxivdvvo: dvOpwrot! roinua 5 rpwrétoKoe mdone KTicews, 6 EK yaoTpd¢ 
po &woddpov yevynbeic (Ps. cix. 3), 6 eixav we codia (Prov. viii. 26)’ mpd d2 mavTwY 
Bovey yevvd pe; Kal roAAdyou dé THv Oeiwv Aoyiwy yeyevviabat, 421’ ob yeyovévat 
tov vidv Aeyduevov etpor Tic dv. We should therefore believe eic Gedv natépa mavto- 
Kpétopa, kal ei¢ Xporév "Inoodv tov vidv abrod, kai eig 76 Gytov nveipa* 7vdobar 62 TH 


Ge TOv bdwv tiv Adyov: tye ydp, dnot, Kai 6 raTHp Ev éopuer (Joh. x. 30)* Kai éy@ by. - 


TO Tatpl, Kal 6 ratip év éuoi. Otbtw yap tv Kai 7 Oeia tptdc, Kat Td Gytov Kipvypya THe 
povapxiac diacdtorto. ~ Comp. Martini, 1. c. S. 227, ff. Baur’s Lehre v. d. Dreieinigkeit, 
i. 311. ses} : 

1 There are certainly found, even in the older fathers, strong passages to the effect that 


232 - FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IIL—A.D. 193-324, 


itself an outward expression in the unity of every thing belong- 
ing to the church. Since religious faith was made interchang- 
able with the intelligent expression of it in doctrine, men began 
also to consider the unity of the latter as necessary to. the 
unity of ihe church, and to limit freedom of inquiry more and 
more. How an endeavor was made to carry out an agreement 
in regard to ecclesiastical usages, with this very view, may be 
seen from Victor’s conduct respecting the celebration of Easter 
in Asia (§ 59); and after his example, the constant effort to 
bring about uniformity, even in external usages, is obvious, 
particularly in the western church. The idea of this unity 
naturally led still farther, to a closer external union among the. 
separate churches; and since the bishops, as successors of the 
apostles, were looked upon as the center of ecclesiastical unity, 
that connection was effected by their more intimate attachment 
to one another; and the episcopal dignity obtained not a little 
elevation in consequence. Another idea which exerted much 
influence on ecclesiastical life was this, that the constitution of 
the Christian church was a nobler copy of the Jewish temple- 
‘worship, and therefore, that the Mosaic laws relative to public 
worship, particularly the priesthood, were still valid in the 
church (§ 58). No Jess fruitful in alterations in the worship 
of God was finally the idea of a disciplina arcani® which began 
to be current toward the conclusion of the second century. © After 
the Christians had always been compelled to keep their worship 


salvation isto be found only in the catholic church. Even Origen Hom. iii.in Josuam, § 5, 
says: Nemo semetipsum décipiat: extra hanc domum, i. e., extra ecclesiam nemo salva- 
tur. Nam si quis foras exierit, mortis suae ipse fit reus. See Rothe die Anfange der 
christl. Kirche, i. 578. He expresses himself elsewhere, however, more mildly, just as 
Clement of Alexandria. See Rothe, i. 624. Thus; while he does not allow to the virtuous 
heathen and the Jews vitam aeternam or regnum coelorum, which can be obtained only 
through faith in Christ, he yet asserts, Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. ii. 7: Tamen gloria operum 
ejus et pax et honor poterit non perire. On the other hand Cyprianus de Unitate ecclesiae: 
Quisquis ab ecclesia segregatus adulterae jungitur, a promissis ecclesiae separatur. Nec 
perveniet ad.Christi praemia, qui relinquit ecclesiam Christi. Alienus est, profanus est, 
hostis est. Habere jam non potest Deum patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet matrem. Si 
potuit evadere quisquam, qui extra arcam Noé fuit, et qui extra ecclesiam foris, fuerit, 
evadet.—Tales etiamsi occisi in confessione nominis fuerint, macula ista nec sanguine 
abluitur—Esse martyr non potest, qui in ecclesia non est, Qccidi talis potest, coronari 
non potest, etc. H. E. Schmieder on Cyprian’s treatise respecting the unity of the church 
in Staudlin’s and Tzschirner’s Archiv. f. Kirchengesch. v. ii. 417. Rettberg’s Cyprianus, 
S. 297, 348, 355. Rothe, i. 635. Cyprian’s Lehre, v. d. Kirche von J. G. Huther. Hamb. 
a. Gotha. 1839. 8. ; 

? This appellation of the Christian mysteries is new; and appears to have been first 
used by G. Th. Meier de Recondita veteris ecclesiae theologia. Helmst. 1679. 4. 


CHAP. IV.—ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. § 68. 933 


private, through fear of persecution and profanation ; they now 
began to find a reason for this secrecy in the nature of their 
holy transactions, by virtue of which they must be kept secret 
as mystertes from all unbaptized persons (tederai, Orig. c. Cels. 
- iii. p. 147), an idea which arose out of, and was fostered by 
the preference for mysteries exhibited at this period, and the 
example of the heathen mysteries (see § 37). - The so-called 
apostolic constitutions may be considered, after deducting later 


3 Tertull. de Praescr. haeret. c. 41: Non omittam ipsius etiam conversationis haereticae 
descriptionem, quam futilis, quam terrena,. quam humana sit, sine gravitate, sine auctori- 
tate, sine disciplina, ut fidei suae congruens. In primis, quis catechumenus quis fidelis, in 
certum est: pariter adeunt, pariter orant, etiam ethnici, si supervenerint: sanctum canibus, 
et porcis margaritas, licet non veras jactabunt. Cf. Apologet.c.7. But this secrecy was 
still limited to the non-admission-of the unbaptized to holy ordinances. The fathers of the 
third century speak without reserve as yet of these transactions, as of all the doctrines of , 
Christianity, and Tertullian even reproaches the Valentinians in the following language, 
adv. Val. 1: Nihil magis curant quam occultare, quod praedicant. It was not till the 
fourth century when this mysterious tendency became general, that even the positive doc- 
trines of Christianity began to be treated as mysteries. Catholic writers have been 
inclined to explain the non-appearance of their peculiar institutions and dogmas in antiquity 
by the aid of this disciplina_arcani. This is done particularly by Em. a Schelstrate de 
Disciplina arcani. Rom. 1685.4. Of late works see Th. Lienhart de Antiquis liturgiis et 
de. Discipl. arcani. Argentor. 1629. J.A. Toklot de Arcani disciplina, quae antiqua in 
ecclesia fuif in usu. Colon. 1836. 8. Comp. on the other side, G. E. Tentzel Diss. de’ 
disciplina arcani in his Exercitt. select. Lips. 1692. 4. G. C. L. Th. Frommann de 
Disciplina arcani, quae in vetere Ecclesia christ. obtinuisse fertur. Jenae. 1833.8. R. 
Rothe de Disciplinae arcani, quae dicitur, in Eccl. christ. origine. Heidelberg: 1841. 4, 
Besides this disciplina arcani excluded only the unbaptized, and is, therefore, of a different 
_ nature from that disciplina agreeably to which, Clement of Alexandria and Origen wished 
to withhold their gnosis even from Christians. (§ 63, note 4, ff) 

* The Apostolic Constitutions and Canons (the best edition of them is in Cotelerii Patr. 
apostolicis, vol. i.) are records of the ecclesiastical customs regarded as apostolic, in the 
form of apostolic prescriptions (cf. Hieron. Epist. 52 ad Lucinium ; Unaquaeque provincia 
abundet in sensu suo, ef praecepta majorum leges apostolicas arbitretur. Augustin. 
contra Donatist. iv. 24: Quod universa tenet ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum, sed semper 
retentum est, id nonnisi apostolica auctoritate traditum certissime credatur). The apostolic 
constitutions, diatégere TGv ’ArooTéAwy, consist of eight books, and probably belong to 
Syria. The first six books presentinginstructionsembracing the entire range of Christian © 
life, were written toward the end of the third century, and are probably the books which 
Eusebius, H. E. iii. c. 25, quoted as didayai TOv "ArooTéAwr, Athanasius in Ep. festali; 
and in Synopsi sacrae Script. as ddayz Tv "AvooTéAwy. The seventh book is an inde- 
pendent shorter manual of the same kind. Hence it generally treats of the same subjects 
as the first six books, and probably belongs to the beginning of the fourth century.. The 
eighth book refers solely to the holy transactions (rd zvorTixd), contains agenda in addition 
to the appropriate canonical prescriptions, and was put together in the middle of the 
fourth century as a pontifical book for the use of the clergy. This book had the title 
dvardterc, which, after the work had been soon after put along with the other books, was 
transferred to the whole. Epiphanius often quotes it as dsatdgeuc or didtagkic TGV ’ATro- 
oTdAwv. After Epiphanius there must, however, have been some interpolations, the 
most important-of which are those by which the prescriptions respecting the festival of 
Christ's birth (v. 13), and the easter festival (v.17, cf. Epiphan. Haer. xxx. 10), have been 
altered agreeably to the later form of observance. Krabbe assumes that after Epiphanius 


234 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. TII.—A.D. 193-324. 


interpolations, as an evidence of the constitution of the church 
at the present time. The apostolic canons belong to the fifth 
and sixth centuries.’ 


§ 68. 
HISTORY OF THE HIERARCHY. 


After the number of the Christians had greatly increased in 
the country, separate churches in the country were now fre- 
quently formed which attached themselves either to the district 
(rapotxia) of the nearest town-bishop, and received from him a 
presbyter or deacon ;* or chose their own bishops (xwperrioxorrot) 
who, however, soon came, in part, to be in a certain state of 
dependence on the nearest town-bishop.” The power of the 


many interpolations were made, even doctrinal ones, favorable to the Arians and the Mace- 
donians, and that the eighth book was first appended after the time of that father; but in 
opposition to his opinion see Drey, p. 154,177. Comp. Dr. O. Krabbe iiber den Ursprung 
u. deri Inhalt d. apost. Constitutionen des Clemens Romanus. Hamburg. 1829; especially 
Dr. J. S. ¥. Drey’s neue Untersuchungen tiber die Constitutionen und Kanones d..Apost. 
Tubingen. 1832.8. According to Baur (iiber den Ursprung des Episcopats, 8. 125, ff. 131, 
ff.), the constitutions are of Ebionitish origin and anti-Pauline tendency, and originated in 
Rome (p. 134.) 

5 Canones Apostolorum, kavéve¢ éxkAnotactixol TOv dylwv ’ArooTéAwy among the 
Greeks 85, among the Latins 50. Every ecclesiastical fundamental law, whether recorded 
or not, was at first called xavOv drocrodikéc (Alexander Ep. Alex., about 318, in Theo- 
doret. H. E. i.3), xavév (Conc. Nicaeni Can. 5, 9), cavav éxxAgovactixée (ibid. Can. 2, 10): 
in this sense the expression of Groorodikol Kavove¢ was also used at the Council of Con- 
stantinople, ann. 394, without, however, supposing that our present collection is meant. 
(Drey, p. 396.) The first fifty canons were gathered soon after the middle of the fifth 
century, under the name of Clement (who, known as the organ of the apostles, by means 
of the Clementines and Recognitions (§ 58), appeared the most suitable person for this 
purpose), from the apostolic constitutions, and from the canons of several synods of the 
fourth century (in particular the Synod of Antioch, 341). Dionysius Exiguus translated 
them, and the Latin church holds fast by them alone. But after the commencement of the 
sixth century, 35 were added among the Greeks, the canons were appended to the consti- 
tutions, and the name of Clement transferred to these also. Drey, p. 203, ff. M.E. Regen- 
brecht de Canonibus Apostolorum et codice Ecclesiae Hispanae diss. Vratislav. 1828. 8. 
O. Krabbe’ Diss. de codice Canonum qui Apostolorum nomine cireumferantur. Gotting. 
1829. 4. 

1 Thus mention is made by Dionys. Alex. ap. Euseb. H. E. vii. 24, 4, of rpecBurépove 
kal dWackddove Tv év Taic KOpate ddeAOGv: by the Conc. Iliberitanum, ann. 305, can. 
77, of Diaconum regentem plebem sine Episcopo et Presbytero: Conc. Nevcaesar. ann. 
315, can. 13. of éxiywpiove mpecButépove. 

2 Thus they are called in the Epist. Syn. Antioch. ann. 270, apud. Euseb. H. E. vii. 30, 
6, éxioxérove Tév buépav Gypov. In the Conc. Ancyranum, ann. 315, can. 13: Kwpemt- 
oxbrowg wy éeivar, npeaButépove 7 Siaxévove yetporoveiv. Cf. Bingham, i. p. 192, ss. 


CHAP. IV.—ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. § 68. HIERARCHY. 935. 


bishops was enlarged, not only by this enlargement of their 
districts, but also by an institution which now arose, in conse- 
quence of which the bishops came into a closer and more reg- . 
ular union among themselves. We allude to Pfovincial Syn-- 
ods, which were always becoming more frequent since the end 
of the second century, and were held in several provinces once 
or twice in the year.* As they were for the most part con- 
vened in the principal city of the province, under the pres- 
idency of the bishop of that city; and since the latter was, as 
it were, the medium in relation to the other smaller bishops, by 
which alone they stood in connection with the rest of the 
church, the bishops of the principal cities (uqtporoAirnc, Metro- 
politanus)* came gradually to obtain a kind of superintendence 
over the other bishops of their proyince (érapyia). As yet, how- 
ever, this metropolitan constitution was general only in the east. 
In the west, it is true, Rome was elevated to be the ecclesiastical 


Planck’s Gesellschaftsverf. i. S. 73, ff. In Africa, where the country bishops were par- 
ticularly numerous, they were not at all distinguished from others, not even by a peculiar 
name. Cf. St. A. Morcelli Africa christiana (Partes iii. Brixiae. 1816. 4). P. I. p. 43. 

3 Firmiliani Epist. ad Cyprian. (in Epist. Cyprian. 75): Qua ex causa necessario apud 
nos fit, ut per singulos annos seniores et praepositi in unum conveniamus ad disponenda 
ea, quae curae nostrae commissa sunt, ut si qua graviora sunt communi consilio dirigantur. 
What had hitherto been usual only in some provinces, was made a universal regulation by 
the Council of Nice, Can. 5: Kadée éyew édofev, éxdortov éviavtod Kal’ éxdotny éxapyiay 
dic tot Erove cvvédove yiveoOat. On the origin of Synods see above, § 53, note 6. The 
regular provincial Synods had, in most of the provinces, their natural type in the xozviv, 
‘Commune, i. e., the union of the civitates of the provinces which met from time to time, by 
deputies, in the metropolis, and gave advice in common matters. So we find frequently on 
coins Kovvév ’Aciac, K. BevOvviag, etc., see Eckhel Doctrina numorum vett. t. iv. p. 428, 
ss. Such assemblies were also called concilium, provinciale concilium, see Cod. Theodos. 
lib. xii. tit. 12, and Gothofredi paratitlon prefixed to this title. Dirksen’s civilistische 
Abhandl. Bd. 2, $. 16. And vice versa the ecclesiastical provincial synod is called, Can. 
Nic. 5, 76 kovov Tév ’Extoxérov. 

4 The principle which gradually arose by custom was afterward expressed in the 
Conc. Antiocheni (341) can. 9: Tod¢ xa@ éxdotny éxapyiav éexickéroug eldévar xp7y, TOY 
év 79 untponbAe mpoeatGra éxickoror kal THY OpovTida avadéyecbar maoNE Tic ETapyiac, 
did 7 év TH unTtpordéAer TavTaxdbev cuvTpéxerv TavTac Tove mpdyuara ExovTac. “Obey 
_ €doge xai 77 TYu™ Tponyeicbat abrov, pndév Te TpdTTELY TEpLTToOV Tove AoLTOvE ExiaKérovs 
Gvev airod, Kata Tov dpyaiov Kpatjoavta Tév TaTépwr HUdV Kavova 7} Taita pova doa 
7H éxdotov éxiBaAder raporkig, Kai taic¢ in’ aitiv yoOpaig: Exactov yap éxicxoToy 
eovoiar éxecy tijg EavTod mapockiac, dtorkeiv Te KaTa THY ExdoTy éEmiBaGAAovoar evAdPetar, 
kal mpévorav roceiobar méons THe YOpag Tig nd THY EavTOd TOALY, Ge Kai YELpoToveEtr 
mpeoBurépoue kai diakdvove, Kai wea Kpicewe Exacta dtadauBdverv ~ Tepartépw é uydéev 
Tpatrew exixerpetv dixa Tob THE uNTpOTOAEws ExLoKdToV, unde abTOV aveV TIE TaY 
AoinGv yvGune. Bacchinii libb. iii. de Origine hierarchiae ecclesiasticae. Mutinae. 1704. 
4. <A history of the metropolitan constitution in W. C.S. Ziegler’s pragmat. Geschichte 
der kirchl. Nepeagehemen i in den ersten 6 Jabrh. der Kirche. Leipzig. 1798, §. 
61-164. 


236 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IIL—A.D. 193-324. 


Sidiacpolia of a great part of Italy; and even in Africa a some- 
what similar, though peculiar, provincial constitution had been 
adopted ;° but in the remaining parts of the west, the Christians 
had not yet reached such hierarchical associations, on account 
of the small number of Christian churches.° 

By this establishment of large ecclesiastical bodies, the entire 
organization of the church became more compact and united. 
Through the medium of the metropolitans the testimonials and 
papers of the separate churches’ were better attested and more 
safely forwarded; accounts of all important écclesiastical events 
and resolutions were more expeditiously and generally circulated ; 
and thus each community was always acquainted with the state 
of the whole church. 

The bishops of the three great cities of the Roman empire, 
ftome, Alexandria, and Antioch, had, at the same time, the 
largest provinces. Hence they were regarded as the principal 
bishops of Christendom ; and their assent in all general affairs 
was looked upon as of special importance. Still, however, at 
this time, great stress was laid on the fact that all bishops were 
_ perfectly alike in dignity and power; and that each in his own 
diocese was answerable only to God for his conduct.’ They 


’ 


5 Every African province had a primate at the head of it, who, in Mauritania and 
Numidia was usually the oldest bishop (not always the oldest, see Hiillmann’s Urspringe 
d. Kirchenverfassung des Mittelalters, Bonn. 1831, p. 101); (hence senex see Bingham, 
vol. i. p. 214, Hillmann, p. 106), and in proconsular Aftica was the bishop of Carthage. 
This last was at the same time the head of all the provinces, and could summon general 
councils. Cf. Cypriani Epist. 45: Latius fusa est nostra provincia: habet enim Numidiam 
et Mauritaniam sibi cohaerentes. Ziegler in Henke’s Neuem Magazin, i.172, ff. Minteri 
Primordia Eccl. Afr. p. 43, ss. This regulation was copied from the political one, because 
all these provinces were under the proconsul in Carthage, under whom the two Mauritanias 
were managed by procurators. See Mannert’s Geographie d. Griechen u. Romer, x. ii. 
233, 391. 

6 Comp. the Ballerini Observatt. ad Quesnelli-diss. v. p. ii. in their edition of the Opp. 
Leonis, tom. ii. p. 1030, ss. Ziegler’s Gesch. der kirchl. Verfassungsformen, S. 79, ff. 

7 Literae communicatoriae appear first in the Concil. Illiberit. can. 58, but their use is 
certainly much older. The xavovixd ypdupata (d¢ Kata Kavéva yivdueva, Zonaras ad 
Can. Laodic. 22), literae formatae (cf. formalis epistola, Sueton. in Domit. c. 13, cf. 
Beveregius ad Can. Apost. 12), which served as testimonials for individuals, were partly 
éxtotoAai ovotartixai, partly elpyvixai (literae pacis), partly drodvtixai (literae dimis- 
soriae). There were besides éx.croAai ko.vwvikat (literae communicatoriae), (aftérward 
évOpoviorikai), éxicto2ai ovvodixal, éyxbKAtot (literae circulares), etc. F.B.Ferrarii de 
Antiquo epistolarum ecclesiasti¢arum genere libb. iii: Mediol. 1613, (ed. G. Th. Meier. 
Helmst. 1678, 4.) Ph. Priorii de Literis canonicis diss. Paris. 1675.8. J. R. Kiesling 
de Stabili primitivae ecclesiae ope literarum comn atoriaram connubio. Lips. 1745. 4. 

& Cy prian. de Unitate ecclesiae: Quam unitatem firmiter tenere et vindicare debemus, 
maxime episcopi, qui in ecclesiae praesidemus, ut Episcopatum quoque ipsum unum atque 





‘ 


CHAP. IV.—ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. § 68, HIERARCHY. 237 


could the less believe in the superior authority of the Romish 
bishop, because the idea of his being Peter’s successor just be- 
gan to be developed ;° and besides, no higher power was attrib- 
uted to Peter than to the other apostles. 10 In the west, indeed, 


indivisum probemus.—Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur. Ej. 
Epist. 52: Episcopatus unus episcoporuam multorum concordi numerositate diffusus. Hj. 
Allocutio in Conc. Carthag. (in the year 256: Superest, ut de hac ipsa re quid singuli 
sentiamus, proferamus, neminem judicantes, ant a jure communionis aliquem, si diversum 
senserit, amoventes. Neque enim quisquam nostrum episcoptm se esse episcoporum 
constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit, quando 
habeat omnis Episcopus pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suae arbitrium propriam, 
fanquam judicari ab glio non possit, cum nec ipse possit alterum judicare. Sed expectemus 
universi jadiciam domini nostri Jesu Christi, qai unus et solus habet potestatem et prae- 
ponendi nos in ecclesiae suae gubernatione, et de actu nostro judicandi. Comp. his letters 
to two Roman bishops, ad Cornelium (Ep. 55, see below, note 11), ad Stephanum (Ep, 
72): Caeterum scimus, quosdam quod semel imbiberint nolle deponere, nec propositum 
suum facile mutare, sed salvo inter collegas pacis et concordiae vinculo quaedam propria, 
quae apud se semel sint usurpata, retinere. Qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut 
legem damus, quando habeat in ecclesiae administratione voluntatis swae arbitrium liberum 
unusquisque praepositus, rationem actus sui Domino redditurus. 

9 The fiction of Peter being first bishop of Rome proceeded from the Clementines (§ 58, 
note 9), and was propagated in the Catholic Church by the Recognitions. Cyprian is the 
first who designates the Romish chair the locum Petri (Ep. 52 ad Antonianum) and Petri 
cathedram ; but at the same time he takes-all bishops to be successors of Peter (see note 
10), Thus he was of the same opinion as Eusebits, Rufinus, and Epiphanius (§ 27, note 
6), that Peter during his stay at Rome, had the supreme direction of the church there, 
without having been connected with it as bishop. In Rome itself, however, many went 
farther, as may be seen from Firmiliani Ep. ad Cyprianum (Ep. Cypr.75): Stephanus qui 
sic de Episcopatus sui loco gloriatur, et se successionem Petri tenere contendit. 

10 Comp. Clemens. Alex. above, § 26, note 4. Origenes ad Matth. xvi. 18 (Comment. in 
Matth. t. xii. § 10): [lérpa yap mac 6 Xpiotod pabyty¢—Kai éxi wacav THY ToLrabryy 
métpav olkodopuetrac 6 ExkAnovaotixoc Tac Adyoc, Kai Y Kar’ abrov ToATEia. §11: Ei d2 
ént tov éva éxsivov Wérpov vouivetc bd Tod Geod olxodopetcbat THY Tadcav éExKAnoiay 
Hévov, Ti dv dhoatc TEpi "lwdvvov Tod Tho BpovThe viod, 7 éxdoTov TOY ’ATooTOAw?D ; 
*AdAwc Te dpa ToAuHowuey Aéyetv, 6ti Métpov, uév Wiog rbAat Gdov ob KaTioxvoovet, 
tov d2 Aoirdv ’ArooTéAwr, Kal Tév TEeheiwy KaTigxyboovaw ; dpa 62 TH Tlétpw wdvy 
didovtat_ ind Tod Kvpiov al KAeidec Tie THv oipavoy Baordeiac, Kai obdei¢c Erepog THY 
paxapiov abrag Aneta; Tapévuuos yap wétpag waves of piuntai Xpiorod. Xprorow 
pErn 6 évTEg TAapOvupoL Expnuarioav Xproriavol, métpac d2 Tlérpot. Kal mpoc wdvrac Tove 
ToLovtoug dv A€yotto Gx Tob owrTipoc Td Aéyov: ov ei TWérpog kai ra éfjc. Hence § 14: 

Kéhextat TO Ilérpw kat wavti Tlétpw. Cyprian. Ep. 27: Dominus noster—episcopi 
honorem et ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in evangelio loquitur et dicit Petro: Ego 
_ tibi dico, quia tu es Petrus, etc. (Matth. xvi. 18, 19). Inde per temporum et successionum 
- vices episcoporum ordinatio et ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut ecclesia super episcopos consti-’ 
_ tauatur, et omnis actus ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur:—Cyprian. de Unitate 
ecclesiae : Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum: “Ego tibi dico,” inquit, “quia tu es Petrus,” 
“ete. (Matth. xvi. 18, 19). [Et-iteram eidem post resurrectionem suam dicit: “ Pasce oves 
meas” (Joan. xxi. 15). Super illum unum aedificat ecclesiam suam, et illi pascendas 
mandat oves suas]: et quamvis Apostolis omnibus pom resurréctionem suam parem 
potestatem tribuat et dicat: “sicut misit me pater,” etc. (Joh. xx. 21, 23) 3 tamen ut 
unitatem manifestaret [unam cathedram constituit, et] unitatis ejisdem originem ab uno 
incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit. Hoc erant utique et caeteri Apostoli, quod fait 
Petrus, pari consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis: sed exordium ab unitate ‘proficisci. 


238 FIRST PERICD.—DIV. Ill.—A.D. 193-324, 


a certain superior honor was paid to the Church of Rome as 
the largest and only apostolic church; but actual Tights over 
the other churches were by no means conceded to it." Still 
less, of course, was this the case in the east.’? 


tur [et primatus Petro datur, ut una Christi ecclesiae et cathedra una monstretur. Et 

- pastores sunt omnes, et grex unus ostenditur, qui ab Apostolis omnibus unanimi consen- 
sione pascatar], ut ecclesia Christi una monstretur—Hanc ecclesiae unitatem qui non 
tenet, tenere se fidem credit? Qui ecclesiae renititar et resistit [qui cathedram Petri, 
super quem fundata est ecclesia, deserit], in ecclesia.se esse confidit? The passages in 
brackets are wanting in the oldest MSS., and are Romish interpolations. See especially - 
Rigaltii Observatt. ad Cyp. p. 162, ss., and Baluzii notae 11-15 to the libb. de unit. eccl. 
(which last, however, have been very much abridged by the Benedictine editors). Even 
the words still admitted by Rigaltius: super illum unum aedificat ecclesiam, are wanting 
in the oldest MSS. Cf. Edm. Richerii Defensio lib. de eccles. et polit. potestate, i. p. 115. 
These additions have quite another sense in the mouth of Cyprian than the interpolators 
meant. For example, what is denoted by the expression in Cyprian, primatus Petro datur, 
is clear from his Epist.71: Nam nec Petrus, quem primum Dominus elegit, et super quem 
aedificavit ecclesiam suam, cum secum Paulus de circumcisione postmodum disceptaret, 
vindicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumsit, ut diceret, se primatum tenere, 
et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere. 

11 Cypriani Epist. 55, ad Cornelium Episc. Romanum, who had received the excommu- 
nicated Felicissimus as embassador of the Carthaginian archbishop Fortanatus :—Satis 
miratus sum, cum animadvertissem, te minis atque terroribus eorum, qui venerant, aliquan- 
tam esse commotum, cum te, secundum quod scripsisti, agressi essent, cum summa 
desperatione comminantes, quod si litteras quas attulerant non accepisses, publice eas 
recitarent, et multa turpia ac probrosa et ore suo digna proferrent. Quod si ita res est, 
frater carissime, ut nequissimorum timeatur audacia—actum est de episcdpatus vigore, 
etc. Quibus etiam satis non fuit ab evangelio recessisse—foris sibi extra ecclesiam et 
contra ecclesiam constituisse conventiculum perditae factionis——Post ista adhuc insuper 
pseudoepiscopo sibi ab haereticis constituto navigare audent et ad Petri cathedram, atque 
ad ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, a schismaticis et profanis 

_litteras ferre, nec cogitare, eos esse Romanos, quorum fides apostolo praedicante laudata 
est (Rom. i. 8), ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum. Quae autem causa veniendi 
et pseudoepiscopum contra episcopos factum nuntiandi? Aut enim placet illis quod 
feceruat: et in suo seelere perseverant: aut si displicet et recedunt, sciunt quo revertan- 
tur. Nam cum statutum sit ab omnibus nobis, et aequum sit pariter ac justum, ut 
uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur, ubi est crimen admissum ; et singulis pastoribus portio 
gregis sit adscripta, quam regat unusquisque et gubernet, rationem sui actus Domino 
redditurus: oportet utique eos quibus praesumus non circumcursare, nec episcoporum 
concordiam cohaerentem sua subdola et fallaci temeritate collidere, sed agere illic causam 
suam, ubi et accusatores habere et testes sui criminis possirt; nisi si paucis desperatis et 
perditis minor videtur esse auctoritas episcoporum in Africa constitutoram, qui jam de illis 
judicaverunt. Jam causa eorum cognitia est, jam de eis dicta sententia est: nec censurae 
congruit sacerdotum mobilis atque inconstantis animi levitate reprehendi, cam Dominus 
doceat et dicat: Sit sermo vester, est est, non non (Matth. v. 37). Cyprian, in his letters, 
constantly calls the Roman bishops frater and collega. What gave the latter a predomi- 
nance in the west is evident from Synodi Arelatensis (in the year 314) Epist. ii. ad Sylves 
tram Papam: Placuit etiam ante scribi ad te, qui majores dioceses tenes, et per te 
potissimum omnibus insinuari. Quid autem sit, quod senserimus, scripto nostrae medi- 
ocritatis subjanximus. 

12 Firmiliani Ep. ad Cypr. (1. c.): Eos autem, qui Romae sunt, non ea in omnibus 
observare, quae sint ab origine tradita, et frustra Apostolorum auctoritatem praetendere, 
scire quis etiam inde potest, quod circa celebrandos dies Paschae et circa multa alia 


CHAP. IV.-ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. §68. HIERARCHY. 239 


As all bishops were supposed to be perfectly alike in dignity 
and power, so also they believed that they had the, same gen- 
eral duties toward the whole church in addition to those pe- 
culiar duties they owed to their respective churches.* Accord- 
ingly they all asserted equally the right of interfering, in cases 
where other bishops had departed from the fundamental rules 
of the church, by admonitions, reprimands, and even eccle- 
siastical punishment.’* This common right was ‘of course 
principally exercised. by the most distinguished and powerful 
bishops. 


divinae rei sacramenta videat esse apud illos aliquas diversitates, nec observari illic omnia 
aequaliter, quae Hierosolymis observantur. 

13 See especially Cypriani Epist. 67, below, note 14. 

144 L. E. du Pin de Antiqua Ecclesiae disciplina dissertt. hist. Paris. 1686..p. 141, ss. 
For example the condemnation of Paul of Samosata (§ 60,.cf. du Pin, p. 154). Reprimand 
of Dionysius of Alexandria (§ 64, note 8, du Pin, p. 152.) With reference to Marcian, 
bishop of Arles, who had gone over to the Novatians, Cyprian. Ep. 67, ad Stephan. Ep. 
Rom. writes: Cui rei nostrum:est consulere et subvenire, frater carissime. Quapropter 


facere te oportet plenissimas litteras ad coepiscopos nostros in Galliis constitutos, ne_ 


altra Marcianum pervicacem—collegio nostro insultare patiantur, quod necdum videatur a 
nobis abstentus.—Dirigantur in provinciam et ad plebem Arelate consistentem a te litterae, 
quibus abstento Marciano alius in locum ejus substituatur, et grex Christi, qui in hodiernum 
ab illo dissipatus et vulneratus contemnitur, colligatur. Sufficiat multos illic ex fratribus 
nostris annis istis superioribus excessisse sine pace. Vel ceteris subveniatur qui super- 
sunt. Iccirco enim, frater carissime, copiosum corpus est sacerdotum concordiae mutuae 
glutino atque unitatis vinculo copulatum, ut si quis ex collegio nostro haeresim facere et 
gregem Christi lacerare et vastare tentaverit, subveniant caeteri, et quasi pastores utiles 
et misericordes oves dominicas in gregem colligant. Quid enim si in mari portus aliquis 
munitionibus suis ruptis infestus et periculosus esse navibus coeperit, nonne navigantes 
ad alios proximos portus naves suas dirigunt, ubi sit tutus accessus et salutaris introitus et 
statio secura? Quod nunc esse apud nos debet, frater carissime, ut fratres nostros, qui 
jactati Marciani scopulis petunt ecclesiae portus salutares, suscipianus ad nos prompta et 
benigna humanitate. Nam etsi pastores multi sumus, unum tamen gregem pascimus, et 
oves universas, quas Christus sanguine suo et passione quaesivit, colligere et. fovere 
debemus, etc. In the matter of the Spanish bishops Basilides and Martial (in the year 
256); Cyprian, called upon to interfere, declares the interposition of Stephanus, bishop of 
Rome, in favor of those deposed bishops to be exceptionable, Epist. 68, ad clerum et 
plebes in Hispania consistentes: Nec rescindere ordinationem (Sabini) jure perfectam 
potest, quod Basilides post crimina sua detecta et conscientiam etiam propria confessiotie 
nudatam, Romam pergens, Stephanum collegam nostrum longe positum et gestae rei ac 
‘veritatis ignarum fefellit, ut exambiret.reponi se injuste in episcopatum, de quo fuerat 
jure depositus. Etsi aliqui de collegis nostris_ exstiterint (namely, Stephanus), fratres 
dilectissimi, qui deificam disciplinam negligendam putant, et cum Basilide et Martiale 
temere communicant, conturbare fidem nostram res ista non debet, etc. Cf. du Pin, 
p. 150. 


£40 FIRST PERIOD—DIV. IIT.—A.D. 193-324. - 


§ 69. 
(CONTINUATION,) HIERARCHY IN THE SEPARATE CHURCHES. 


After the idea of the Mosaic priesthood had been adopted in 
the Christian church, the clergy, as was natural, elevated them- 
selves far above the laity. A peculiar mystic influence was. as- 
cribed to the old rite of consecration, when considered as an o7- 
dinatio ; and they now appeared in the character of persons ap- 
pointed by God himself to be the medium of communication be- 
tween Him and the Christian world. 

For the inferior services of the church particular offices were 
appointed, different, however, in the Greek and Latin churches. | 
In the former, brqpérac (or brodidkovor), padaT@doi (or wdArat), 
dvayveora and mvAwpoi:? in the latter, Subdiaconi, Acoluthi, 


1 Cypriani Epist.55: Nam cum scriptum sit: Qui dixerit fratri, suo, fatue, etc. (Matth. 
-v. 22), quomodo possunt censuram Domini ultoris evadere, qui talia ingerunt, non solum 
fratribus, sed et sacerdotibus, quibus honor tantus de Dei dignatione conceditur, ut quisquis 
sacerdoti ejus et ad tempus hic judicanti non obtemperaret, statim necaretur. Neque 
enim aliunde haereses obortae sunt, aut nata sunt schismata, quam inde quod sacerdoti 
Dei non obtemperatur, nec unus in ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos et ad tempus judex vice 
Christi cogitatur. Epist. 69, ad Florent. Pupianum: Animadverto te—in mores nostros 
diligenter inquirere, et post Deum judicem, qui sacerdotes facit, te velle, non dicam de 
me (quantus enim ego sum?) sed de Dei et Christi judicio judicare. Hoc est in Deum 
non credere, hoc est rebellem adversus Christum et adversus evangelium ejus existere, ut 
—tu existimes, sacerdotes Dei sine conscientia ejus in ecclesia ordinari—Quamobrem, 
frater, si majestatem Dei, qui sacerdotes ordinat, cogitaveris, si Christum, qui arbitrio et 
nutu ac praesentia sua et praepositos ipsos et ecclesiam cum praepositis gubernat, aliquan- 
do respexeris, si temeritatis—tuae agere vel sero poenitentiam coeperis, si Deo et Christo 
ejus—plenissime satisfeceris ; communicationis tuae poterimus habere rationem: manente 
tamen apud nos divinae censurae respectu et metu, ut prius Dominum meum consulam, 
an tibi pacem dari, et te ad communicationem ecclesiae suae admitti sua ostensione et 
admonitioné permittat. Memini enim, quid jam mihi sit ostensum, immo quid sit servo 
obsequenti et timenti de dominica et divina auctoritate praeceptum: qui inter caetera 
quae ostendere et revelare dignatus est, et hoc addidit: Itaque qui Christo non credit 
sacerdotem facienti, et postea credere incipiet sacerdotem vindicanti. Cf. Epistt. 45, 52, 
65. On the dignity of the priests, and particularly of the bishops, see Const. Ap. ii. 26, 
ss. As spiritual fathers, they are to be regarded as higher than earthly parents, c. 33, 
higher than kings and princes, c. 34: Totrove dpyovrac tudv nai Bactreic jyeicbat 
vouitere, kat dacnove a¢ Bactdedor- Tpoogépete. “Oow Toivey wuyxH oapatoc KpeiT- 
Tuv, TooobTo lepwobvn BactAciacg: dequeter yap aiTH Kal Avet Tove TiYwwpiag 7 doéoEws 
akiovg: dtd Tv éxicxorov arépyetv dgeiAete WE maTépa, PoBetoBat WE Baci2éa, TYugY O¢ 
Ktpiov. 

2 So Constitutt. Apost. iii. 11, vi. 17. Those who are called in the first six books 
irnpérar are denominated prodidkovor in viii. 28 (imnpétar ydp eiot dtaxdvwr): a 
brodtdxovog is also named by Athanasius in Epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes. Many 


CHAP. IV.—ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. § 69. HIERARCHY. _ 94] 


Exorcistae, Lectores, and Ostiarii? (afterward called ordines 
minores). All oppressed and helpless persons, especially widows, 
orphans, and virgins,‘ were referred to the clergy for assistance. 
The bishop (Papa, Tert. de Pudic. 138. dma lepdraroc, Gregor. 
Thaum. Epist. can. i., Praepositus, Cyprian, note 1) exercised 
this support, as well as the administration of the entire wealth of 
the church, by the deacons.’ In like manner, supported by his 
clergy, he was umpire in all disputes between the members of 
his church. The bishops greatly increased in reputation’ and 
revenues, both by the enlargement of their dioceses and the 
clergy subject to them, and by the operation of synods. But 
in this very way many were now led astray unto pride, ambi-: 
tion, and ayarice ;’ sometimes even into an immoderate ostenta- 


communities, however, had different regulations. In the enumeration contained in Const. 
Apost. ii. 28, the drypérar are wanting, in the eighth book the mvAwpof. On the other - 
hand, in viii. 11, the deacons have to watch the doors of the men, the subdeacons those of 
the women (ef. ‘Cone. Laodic. in the fourth century, can. 22: “Ort ob det ixnpérny Tag 
Gdpag éyKkatadiuravetyv). Thus the drodidxovor and the rvAwpoi were sometimes the 
same, sometimes different individuals. Respecting the readers and singers, see Socrates 
Hist. eécl. vy. 22: *Ev "AdeSavdpeia avayveorat kal broBorei¢ dd:agopor, cite xatnyob- 
pevot eiciv, ete wiotot. The Greek church never adopted Acoluthi and Exorcists, comp. 
Constitutt. Apost. viii. 26: "Exopxioty¢ ob yetporovetra:. His gift is a free favor 
bestowed by God; and should he wish to assume the clerical office, he is ordained a 
bishop, presbyter, or deacon. 

3 First the Lectores mentioned in Tertullian de Praescr. 41. The others are found first © 
in Cyprian and in Epist. Cornelii (bishop of Rome, 252) ap. Euseb. vi. 43, according to 
whose account there were in Rome, 46 presbyters, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acoluthi, 
and 42 exorcists, lectores, and ostiarii. 

* Const. Ap. ii. 26: Ai te yf#pat kai dpdavoi cic Téixov Tod @vo.asrnpiov AeAoyicbucav 
buiv: ai re rapbévot eic Térxov Tod Ovucatnpiov TeriuyoBwoay Kat ToD Ouueduaroc. 

5 Constitt. Apost. ii. 44: "Eora 6 SuaKovor Tov éExtoKxdmov akon, Kal dg0aryie kat 
oTéua, kapdia Te Kai Wy7, iva uA Ta TWOAAG pepisvdrv 6 éxioxoroc, GA2RA pdva Ta 
Kuplorepa. 

§ As the Jews were accustomed to decide their disputes by umpires chosen from among 

- the people, agreeably to the Mosaic law (Jos. Antt. xiv. 10, 17, xvi. 6), so from the begin- 

ning the Christians also, according to 1 Cor. vi. 1, ff., in order to establish the relations 

-subsisting among them by the gospel, not by a heathen tribunal. The Roman juris- 
“prudence favored generally procedure by arbitration, as Digest. lib. iv. tit. 8: De receptis, . 
_ qui arbitrium receperunt, ut sententiam dicant, and in order to make the arbitration sen-. 

- tence secure, prescribed a penal clause to be inserted in the compromise. The Christians 

were accustomed to choose their bishops as umpires. Their decisions required no such 
‘safeguard, but were sufficiently protected by religious awe. Respecting this point, see 

Const. App. ii. 45-53. According to chapter 47, Monday is said to be the episcopal 
* judicial day on which the bishop, surrounded by his presbyters and deacons, hears the 
contending parties, and also complaints regarding unchristian conduct. First of all, the 
other clergy attempt to reconcile the parties, and if this proves ineffectual, the episcopal 
sentence succeeds. But the bishop éy TG dexacrnpiy obppysov Exer kat ovviotopa Bs 
dixne TOV Xptorov Tob Beod. 

7 Origines in Exod. Hom. xi. §6: Quis autem hodie eorem, qui populis preesunt, non 


VOL. 116. 


242 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. 1L—A.D. 193-324, 


tion.® Still, however, their power continued to be restricted in 
“many ways. Although the provincial bishops exercised:a de- 
cided influence on the choice of a bishop, yet the election de- 
pended in a. great degree on the church.’ The bishop himself, 
it is true, nominated the inferior clergy, but the presbyters had 


dico si jam aliqua ei a Deo revelata sunt, sed in legis scientia aliquid meriti habet, con- 
silium dignatur inferioris saltem’ sacerdotis accipere? nedum dixerim laici vel gentilis. 
Idem in Matthaeum, tom. xvi. § 8 (on Luke xxii. 25, 26): ‘Hueic—roodrot topev, o¢ 
éviote Kal Tov Tov Kakdc dpyévTwr ev Toig EOveow irepBd2AEw Tidov, Kal yovovovyi 
Cnretv O¢ of Bactheic dopvdgdpove, Kai goBepove éavtov¢ kai dvorpocirovs hadwora Toi¢ 
wévnoi karackevdtovrec; TaLotrot éopev TpOc. adrove evrvyxdvovras i auiv, kai wept TWO 
“Svodvrac, ¢ 0662 of Topavvol, Kai. apotepor TOV dpyovTav mpoc Tove lkétac. Kai gore 
ye ieiv tv rodAdaig vouilouévare éxxdnoiatc, kai pddtota tai¢ TOY pEelévev TO2AEwW?, 
Tove #youpévove. Tod Aaod Tov Beod undepiav loodoyiav émstpéxovtac, Ec bre Kai Toig. 
Kaddiorore THv *Inood pwabytdv, sivat mpd. attobc. Kai Tadta mévtTa. wou AéAEKTAE 
Bovaopévy Kata Tov Adyov mapacTioa, bt. ob uLuntéov TH dpyovte Tho éxKAnoiac Tov 
dpxyovta Tov éOvdv, xk. tT. A. Cf. ejusd. in Matth, Commentariorum series, § 9: Sicut 
autem super cathedram Moysi—sic et super cathedram ecclesiasticam sedent quidam 
dicentes, quae facere oporteat unumquemque, non autem facientes, et alligantes onera 
gravia et imponunt super humeros hominum, ipsi nec digito volentes ea movere (Matth. 
X&iii. 2, 3). Ibid. § 10, 12, 14,:61, in Num. Hom. ii. 1, in Esaiam Hom. vii. 3. \ Cyprian. 
de Lapsis: Episcopi plurimi, quos et hortamento esse oportet caeteris et exemplo, divina 
procuratione contemta, procuratores rerum saeculariam fieri; derelicta cathedra, plebe 
-deserta, per alienas provincias oberrantes, negotiationis quaestuosae nundinas aucupari; 
esurientibus in ecclesia fratribus, habere argentum largiter velle, fundos insidiosis fraudibus 
rapere, usuris multiplicantibus fenus.augere. 

8 Compare the objections which were made to Paul of Samosata, in the writing of 
the synod at Antioch, which had been assembled against him, ap. Euseb. vii. 30. He 
drew from his episcopal jurisdiction unlawful gain, in the exercise of it imitated civil 
rulers, by causing to be erected for himself a Biya kai Opdvov indy, by having a 
ofxpntov, like worldly judges, and frequently giving himself up to the greatest violence. 
In the church he caused applause to be dealt out to him by the waving of handkerchiefs 
and clapping of hands. This was justly condemned; but since the clapping of hands, by 
way of applause, was universal in the fourth century, it may be assumed that Paul was 
not the only bishop of his time who willingly put up with it. 

® Comp. § 30, note 12. Cyprian. Epist. 68: Plebs ipse maxime habet potestatem vel 
eligendi dignos sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi. Quod et ipsum videmus de divina 
auctitorate descendere, ut. sacerdos plebe praesente sub omnium oculis deligatur, et 
dignus atque idoneus publico judicio ac testimonio comprobetur, sicut in Numeris Dom- 
inus Moysi praecepit dicens: Apprehende Aaron fratrem et Eleazarum filinm ejus, et 
impone eos in montem coram omni synagoga, etc. (Num. xx. 25.) Coram omni synagoga 
jubet Deus.constitai sacerdotem, id est, instruit et ostendit, ordinationes sacerdotales nou 
nisi sub populi assistentis conscientia fiere oportere, ut plebe praesente vel detegantur 
malorum crimina vel bonorum merita praedicentur, et sit ordinatio justa et legitima, quae 
omnium suffragio et judicio fuerit examinata. Propter quod diligenter de traditione divina 
et apostolica observatione servandum est et tenendum, quod apud nos quoque et fere per 
provincias universas tenetur; ut ad ordinationes rite’ celebrandas ad eam plebem, cui 
praepositus ordinatur, episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi quique conveniant, et epis- 
copus deligatur plebe praesente, quae singulorum vitam plenissime novit, et uniuscujusque 
actum de ejus conyersatione perspexit. Origenes in Levit. Hom. vi. c. 3. Hence in 
Cyprian: Episcopus factus de Dei et Christi ejus judicio, de clericorum testimonio, de 
plebis suffragio (Epist. 52, cf. Ep. 41), cf Lamprid. in Sev. Alex. c. 45 (§ 56, note 6é) F. 
A. Staudenmaier’s Gesch. der Bischofswahlen. Tiibingen. 1830. 8. 20. 


CHAP. IV.-ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE, } 69. HIERARCHY. » 943 


first to be approved by the church.’? In the discharge of his 
duties the bishop had not only to consult his presbyters," but — 
even in certain cases to ask the opinion of the whole church.’ 
There were even yet cases in which laymen learned in the Scrip- 
tures publicly taught in the church with permission of the 
bishops.** | 


10 Cyprian, Ep. 65. Diaconi ab episcopis fiant. Ep. 33, ed Clerum et plebem Carthas. 
In ordinationibus clerieis, fratres carissimi, solemus vos ante consulere, et mores ac merita 
singuloram-communi consilio ponderare. Cornelii Ep. ad Fabium (ap. Euseb. vi. 43, 7): 
At the ordination of Novatian as presbyter 6 émioxomo¢ Srakwhvopevos bd TavrTo¢ Tot 
KARpov, GAAG Kal Aaikdv ToAAdy, qSiwoe ovyxopnfijva att@ Totrov uévoy xelporovijaat. 
Cf. Vales. ad h. 1. . 

11 In Cyprian often, consulere preshyterium, consilio communi res tractare, etc. Comp. 
Conc. Carthagin. gener. iv. v. J. 398, can. 23 (Mansii, iii. p. 953): Episcopus nullus causam 

- audiat absque praesentia clericoram suorum: alioquin irrita erit sententia Episcopi, nisi 
clericorum sententia confirmetur. Concerning the right of voting at synods, see Ziegler 
in Henke's Neuem Magazin, Bd. 1, S. 165, ff. 

12 Cyprian, Ep. 5, ad | Presbyt. et Diac.: Quando a primordio episcopatus mei statuerim, 
nihil sine consilio vestro et sine consensu plebis mea privatim sententia gerere. So par- 
ticularly at the readmittance of the lapsed. Cypriani Ep. 11, ad Plebem: Exspectent 
(lapsi) regressionem nostram, ut-—convocati episcopi plures secundum Domini disciplinam, 
et Confessoram praesentiam, et vestram quoque sententiam beatorum martyrum litteras 
et desideria examinare possimus. Ep. 13, ad Cleram: Hoc enim et verecundiae et 

-disciplinae et vitae ipsi omnium nostrum convenit, ut praepositi cum clero convenientes, 

- praesente etiam stantium plebe, quibus et ipsis pro fide et timore suo honor habendus est, 
disponere omnia consilii communis religione possimus. Ep. 17, ad Presbyt. et Diac.: 
Quae res cum omnium nostrum consilium et sententiam exspectet, praejudicare ego et 
soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo. Ep. 28, ad Eosdem: Cui rei non potui 
me solum judicem dare, cum—haec singulorum tractanda sit et limanda plenius ratio, 
non tantum cum collegis meis, sed et‘cum plebe ipsa universa. That the same principles 
were acted on at Rome is clear from Hp. Cleri Rom. ad Cypr. (Ep. Cypr. 31). —Cypriani 
Ep. 9, ad ‘Clerum: Presbyters who have admitted the lapsed to church communion must 
agere et apud nos, et apud confessores ipsos, et apud plebem universam causam suam. 
Cf. du Pin de Ant. Eccl. disc. p. 246, ss: J. H. Boehmeri xii. Dissert. juris eccl. ant. ed. a 
p- 149, ss. - 

13 Epist. Alexandri Episc. Hierosol. et Theoctisti Caesariensis ad Demetrium Alexandr. 
(ap. Euseb. vi. 19, 7). In the case of Origen: Ipocé@nkag dé toic yodupacir, drt TodTe 
obdé rote nKkobcOn, oddé viv yeyévyTat, TO, mapovrav éxioxdrav Aaixove dutdetv, odK 
old’ brag mpogavéc obk dAnOR Abywv. “Orxov yotv ebpiokovtar ol éxirfderor mpeg TE 
dgereiv tore adeAgodc, kal Tapakxahodvta TH AaW rpocomidAciv dnd Tov dyiwy éexto 
“‘Kétwv* Gorep év Aapdvootc EveAric bxd Néwvog, cal év Ikoviw Tlavaivog ixd Kédcov 
Kal év Suvvadore Oeddwpos ind ’AtriKod TOY uakapinv GdeAddv~ elkde 62 Kai év GAAoLg 
Tomoue TOOTO yiveodat, 7 jude 6& uy eldévat. So also Constitt. Apost. viii. c. 32: ‘O didac 
Rov, ei kat Aaikd¢ 7, furrerpog dé Tod Adyov, Kai Tov mpdrov cepvoc, O.dackéTw* ECOVTE | 
yap mdvrec didaKtot cod (Jo. vi: 45): and Conc. Carthag. gener. iv. c. 98 (Mansi, iii. p » 
059): Laicus praesentibus clericis nisi ipsis jubentibus docere non audeat. 


244 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IIL—A.D. 193-324. 


§ 70. 
- DIVINE SERVICE. 


In the third century the traces of buildings devoted exciu- 
sively to Christian worship become more frequent and obvious ;' 
and as early as the peaceful times between the Valerian and 
Diocletian persecutions, splendid edifices had been erected for 
this purpose.? These were called xpoceverfpiov, xvptaxéy, domin- 
icum, olxo¢g éxxAnotag and simply éx«aqoia. From the time of 
Constantine they were also styled vaéc, templum, but never 
fanum and delubrum. In imitation of the temple of Jerusalem, 
a part of the interior was inaccessible to the people (4yiaoua, 
Bijua, chorus), where the wooden table for the Lord’s Supper 
tpdmefa, mensa sacra) stood beside the seats of the clergy (xaGé- 
_dpa, Opdvor).* Though the Christians were fond of certain re- 
ligious symbols on many of their household utensils,‘ yet noth- 
ing of this kind was allowed in the churches.’ 

At the time of Origen, the Christians had no other general 
festivals besides Sunday, than the parasceve (preparation) the 
passover, and the feast of pentecost.6 Soon, after, however, 
there appears to have been added to them the feast of the as- 
cension (i éopri tig dvadAews tov Kvpiov).’ So also in Egypt, 


1 Under Severus Alexander (§ 56, note 6) then in Cyprian, Dionysius of Alexandria, etc. 
Comp. above, § 53, note 10. : 

2 Euseb. H. E. viii. 1, 2: Mydauéc ert roi¢ madatoic oixodoujuacw dpxotyevoy 
etpeiac ele mAdTO¢ ava mécacg Tac TOAEIL¢ éx Bepehiov dvictwv éxkAnotac. 

3 A prescription respecting the planning of churches is found in Constitt. Apost. ii. 57. 
A description of the church at Tyre apud Euseb. x. 4, 15, ss. : 

* So on the seal-rings, a dove, a ship, a lyre, an anchor, a fish, etc. Clem. Alex. Pae- 
dag. iii. p. 289. Tertullianus de Pudic. c. 7, mentions the picturae calicum representing 
the ovis perdita a Domino requisita, et humeris ejus revecta, but does not seem (cap. 10), 

_to approve of it. Minter’s Sinnbilder der alten Christen. Heft 1, 8. 7, f. 

5 Can. Dlliberit. 36: Placuit, picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitar et 
adoratur, in parietibus depingatur. The older Catholic theologians, for example Baronius, 
Bellarmine, Perronius, etc., tried many ways of evading the force of this canon; on the 
contrary, the true meaning of it, with its historical consequences, has been acknowledged 
by Petavius Dogm. theol. lib. xv. c. 13, no.3. Pagiug Crit. adiann. 55, no. 4. 18, especially 
/Natalis Alexander ad Hist. eccl. saec. iii. Diss, 21, Art. 2. 

® Origen. contra Cels. viii. p. 392. ; 

7 First mentioned in the Constitt. Apostol. v. 19, and considered by Augustine (Ep. 118 

_ ad Januar.) as an ancient festival. See Krabbe iiber die apost. Constitutionen, S. 176, ff. 


CHAP. IV.—ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. §70. DIVINE SERVICE. 245 


toward the end of the third century, they began to observe, after 
the example of Basilides’ followers,’ the epiphany (ra éxipdvia) 
on the sixth of January, but according to the orthodox view of 
the appearance of the Logos on earth (7 ém@dveva) not simply 
as the festival of his baptism, but also as that of his birth. 
The arrangement of Divine worship at this time is found in the 
Constitt. Apost. li. 57. At the agapae, the clergy and poor 
were particularly remembered (l. ¢. ii. 28). 

The respect paid to martyrs still maintains the same char- 
acter as in the second century, differing only in degree, not in 
kind, from the honor shown to other esteemed dead. As the 
churches held the yearly festivals of their martyrs at the graves 
of the latter,’ so they willingly assembled frequently in the 
burial places of their deceased friends,'® for which they used in 
many places even caves (cryptae, catacumbae).'' At the cele- 


® Comp. § 45, note 2. So also Jablonski de Orig. festi nativ. Christi diss. i. §7.. (Opusc. 
ed. te Water, iii. p. 328, ss.) Differently Neander gnost. Systeme, S. 49, 81, and Kirchen- 
gesch. i. i. S. 519. On the other side see Hallische A. L. Z. April, 1823, 8. 836. 
9 Comp. § 53, note 46. A remarkable accommodation of Gregory Thaumaturgus, see 
. Vita S. Gregorii Thaumat. per Gregor. Nyssenum (ed. G. Vosii, p. 312): Luvidav dre taic 
~ gapatikaic Ovundiac TH wept Ta eldwiha rAdvy capapéver TO VATLOdES TOV TOAAGY Kai 
araidevtov: oc av 76 mpoynyotvuevov Téwe év abtoic udAtota Katophwhein TO mpd¢ TOV 
Gedy “GvTi.tév paralwy oeBaoudrov Brévew, edjxev avtoicg Taig Tov Gytwy wapTipwy 
éugardpivecbat uvrnuate Kai evraetv Kal dydAAecbat. 

10 Constitt. Apost. v. c. 8: Luvabpoilecbe ev toic Kolunrnpiotc, THY dndyvoow TOV 
iepOv BiBAiov molotuevot, Kal WadAdAovrtec bxép TGV KeKxolunuévorv uapTipav Kal TdvTav 
tov an aidévoc dyiwv, Kai Tév ddeAGdv tuov tév ev Kupiw Kekolunuévav’ Kai TV 
dytiturov tod BactAeiov capatog Xpiarod dexthv ebyapiotiav mpoogepete tv Te Tai¢ 
éxxAnoiac tudv, Kai év toi¢g Koyznrynpiorc. Hence Aemilianus, governor of Egypt, said 
to the Christians brought before him in the Decian persecution (Dionys. Alex. ap. Euseb. 
vii. 11,4): Oidaudc 62 &&éoras buiv—FH cvvddove roteiobat, } ig TA KaAObUEVA KOLUYTIpLA 
eievévat. So also the proconsul of Africa (Acta proconsularia S. Cypriani, c. 1). Gallienus 
removed this prohibitory rule (see above, § 56, note 14); but Maximinus afterward renewed 

_ it (Euseb, ix. c. 2), These burial-places were called youuqtjpiov, dormitorium. 

. 41 Christian catacombs are found in Rome, Naples, Syracuse, and Malta. In the year | 
1844 they’ were also discovered on the island Melos. Respecting the Roman catacombs, 
Hieronymus in Ezechiel. c. 40: Dum essem Romae puer, et liberalibus studiis erudirer, 
solebam cum caeteris ejusdem aetatis et propositi diebus dominicis sepulchra Apostolorum — 
et Martyrum circuire: crebroque cryptas ingredi, quae in terrarum profunda defossae, ex 

_ .utraque parte ingredientium per parietes habent corpora sepulturarum, et ita obscura sunt 
omnia, ut propemodum illud propheticum compleatur: descendant ad infernum viventes, 
ete. Cf. Prudentius rep? cred. hymn. xi. Passio Hippolyti, v. 153, ss —Modern descriptions 

. of the catacombs. in Rome, Pauli Aringhi Roma subterranea novissima. Paris. 1659, 2 
’ voll. fol. M. A. Boldetti Osservazioni sopra i Cimiteri de SS. Martiri, ed antichi Cristiani 
di Roma. 1720. 2 t. fol. See farther the works of Bottari, Ciampini, etc. (see Minter’s 
Sinnbilder d. alten Christen.-Heft. 1, S. 24). Volkmann’s histor. krit. Nachrichten ‘v. 
italien. (Leipz. 3 Bde. 1777), iii. 67. A description of the city of Rome by Platner, 
Bunsen, ‘efiae, and Rostell (Stuttgart and Tubingen. 1830. i. 355); Respecting those 


246 FIRST PERIOD. —DIV. WL—A: D. 193-324. 


‘bration of the Lord’s Supper, both the living who shtithit’« obla- 
tions, as well as the dead, and the martyrs for whom offerings 
were presented, especially on the anniversary of their death, 
were included by name in the prayer of the church.” Inas- 
much as the re-admission of a sinner into the church was 
thought to stand in close connection with the forgiveness of sin, 
_an opinion was associated with the older custom of restoring to 
church communion the lapsed who had been again received by 
the martyrs, that the martyrs could also be serviceable in ob- 
taining the forgiveness of sins.'* In doing so they set out in 
part with the idea, which is very natural, that the dead prayed 
for the living, as the living prayed for the dead,'‘ but that the 
intercession of martyrs abiding in the society of the Lord, 
_ would be of peculiar efficacy on behalf of their brethren :'° while 
they partly thought that the martyrs, as assessors in ot last 
decisive judgment, were particularly active (1 Cor. vi. 2, 3).”* 


tn Naples: Pellicia de Christ. eccl. politia. tom. iii. P. ii. Diss. 5. Chr. F. Belecnbaiea 
uber die altesten christ]. Begrabnisstitten, u. bes. die Katakomben zu Neapel mit ihren 
Wandgemalden. Hamburg. 1839. 4: Respecting those in Sicily, see Bartel’s Briefe tiber 
Calabrien u. Sicilien. (G6tting. 3 Th. 1787-91), iii. 203. Miinter’s Nachrichten v. Neapet 
und Sicilien, S. 344.—By the “‘ Congregation of Relies and Indulgences,” the symbol of 
the palm and the pretended blood-vessels (which were more probably used in the celebra- 
tion of the eucharist) have been established as marks of the graves of martyrs ; but that 
they ate not sufficient marks is shown by Eusebius Romanus (Mabillon) de cultu Sanc- 
torum ignotorum. Paris. 1688. 4. In the second edition, however, he was obliged to 
yield. 1705. (The church in the Catacombs, by Dr. C. Maitland. London, 1846. 8vo). 

12 These registers of names, since they were not always the same, were inscribed for 
each occasion on the writing-tables then used (diptycha, dixrvya), and afterward erased. 
Hence the appellation diptycha was used of the lists of names of persons to be mentioned 
‘at the communion service, though these lists afterward assumed a more permanent 
character after all the offerentes were no longer called by name. This, and the peculiar 
names diptycha episcoporum, dipt. vivorum, dipt. mortuorum, first oceur in the fifth cen- 

y. Chr. A. Salig. de Diptychis veternum tam profanis quam sacris.. Halae. 1731. 4. 

13 Against this notion great zeal is shown by Tertull. de Pudicitia, c. 22: In ipsa 
securitate et possessione martyrii quis permittit homini donare quae Deo reservanda 
sunt 7—Sufficiat martyri propria delicta purgasse. Ingrati vel superbi est in alios quoque 
spargere, quod pro magno fuerit consecutus. On the other hand, even Cyprian, Ep. 12 

and 13, admits, Christianos auxilio Martyrum adjuvari apud Dominum in delictis suis posse. 
' 14 Gypriani Epist.57 ad Cornelium: Memores nostri invicem simus;—utrobique pro nobis 
semper oremus,—et si quis istinc nostrum prior divinae dignationis celeritate praecesserit, 
perseveret apud Dominum nostra dilectio, pro fratribus et sororibus nostris apud misericor- 
diam patris non cesset oratio. 

18 Cyprian writes to confessors, Ep. 15: Vox illa purificatione confessionis illustris—im- 
petrat de domini bonitate quod postulat; and Ep. 77: Nune vobis in precibus efficacior 
sermo est, et ad impetrandum quod in pressuris petitur facilior oratio est. : 

16 Cypriants de Lapsis: Credimus quidem posse apud jadicem plurimum Martyrum 
merita et.opera justorum : sed cum jadicii dies venerit, cum post occasum saeculi hujus et 
mundi ante tribunal Christi poptiloa ejus adsteterit. Martyrs are, according to Dionysius 


CHAP. IV. —ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. § 70. DIVINE SERVICE. 247 


Origen attributed very great value to that intercession, 1 in expect- 
ing from it great help toward sanctification;” but he went beyond 
the ideas hitherto entertained in attributing to martyrdom an im- 
portance and efficacy similar to the death of Christ.1® Hence he 
feared the cessation of persecution as a misfortune.1® The more 
the opinion that value belonged to the intercession of martyrs was 
established,”° the oftener it may have happened that persons recom- 
mended themselves to the martyrs yet living for intercession, i. e. 
after their death.24_ On the other hand, no trace is found of in- 


Alex. ab. Euseb. H. E. vi. 42, 3: Oi viv tod Xpiotod m&pedpor Kat tie BaotAsiag abtod 
. Kotvwvol, Kai uéTOXoL THE Kpiaews abrod, kai ovvdixdlovtec avT@. 

17 Origenes in Cant. Cant. lib. iii. ed. de la Rue. t. iii. p. 75: Sed et omnes sancti, qui de 
hac vita decesserunt, habentes adhuc charitatem erga eos qui in hoc mundo sunt si dican- 
tur curam gerere salutis eorum et.juvare eos precibus suis atque interventu suo apud Deum 
non erit,inconveniens.—In libr. Jesu Nave, Hom. xvi. 5: Ego sic arbitror, quod omnes illi, 
qui dormierunt ante nos, patres pugnent nobiscum et adjuvent nos orationibus suis. Ita 
namque etiam quemdam de senioribus magistris audivi dicentem in eo loco, in quo scriptum 
est in Numeris (xxii. 4), quia ablinget synagoga illa hanc synagogam, sicut ablingit vitulus 
herbam viridem in campo. Dicebat ergo: Quare hujusmodi similitudo assumpta est, nisi 
quia hoc est, quod intelligendum est in hoc loco, quod synagoga Domini, quae nos praeces- 
sit in sanctis, ore et lingua consumit adversariam synagogam, i.e., orationibus et precibus 
adversarios nostros absumit ?—in epist. ad Rom. lib. ii.4: Jam vero si etiam extra corpus 
‘ positi vel sancti, qui cum Christo sunt, agunt aliquid, et laborant pro nobis ad similitudinem 
angelorum, qui salutis nostrae ministeria procurant: vel rursum peccatores etiam ipsi 
extra corpus positi agunt aliquid secundum propositum mentis suae, ad angelorum ni- 
hilominus similitudinem sinistrorum, cum quibus et in aeternum ignem mittendi di- 
cuntur a Christo: habeatur et hoc quoque inter occulta Dei, nec chartulae committenda. 
mysteria. 

an Origenis Exhort. ad Mortar. c. 30: ’Exiotyoov él TO KaTa TO wapTipLoy BdrTLCLMa, - 
Gorep TO TOD GwTHpo¢ KaGapalov yéyove Tod Kdopov, Kai aiTo Ent TOAAGY Oepareia Kab- 
alpopevov yivetat. O¢ yap of TH Kata Tov Mwcéwe vopuov Ovo.actnpiy mpocedpebvovTec 
dtaxoveiy é06Kovv Ov’ aiwatoc TavpOv Kai Tpdywy Gdeowy Guaptnudtav éxeivoe obtw¢ al 
oyal Tov meTeAeKtouévon Evexev TH¢ wapTupiag "Inood wy waTHY TO év obpavoic Ovatac- 
Tnply 7 Tmapedpedovoat Otakovoicr Toi¢ ebyouévolg GEowv dpapthudrav. Cap. 50: Taya dé 
Kal Gorep. Timi aiuare Tod "Inoot qyopaoOnuev,—obTw¢ TO Tiviy aiwate TOV MapTipav 
dyopacbjcovrat tivec. Cf. in Numeros Hom. xxiv. 1. 

19 Origenes in Num. Hom. x. 2: Et quidem quod Dominus noster J. Chr venerit, ut tol- 
leret peccatum mundi, et morte sua peccata nostra deleverit, nullus, qui Christo credit, 
ignorat. Quomodo autem et filii ejus auferant peccata sanctorum, i. e., Apostoli et: Marty- 

Tes, si poterimus, ex scripturis divinis probare tentabimus. (He appeals to 2 Cor. xii. 15, 
' 2 Tim. iv. 6, Apoe. vi. 9.) Unde ergo vereor, ne forte, ex quo Martyres non fiunt, et hostiae 
sanctorum non offeruntur pro peccatis nostris, peccatorum nostrorum remisstionem non 
‘Thereamur. Et ideo etiam diabolus, sciens, per passionem Martyrii remissionem res pec- 
eatorum, non vult nobis publicas Gentilium persecutiones movere. 2 
*0.The Origenist Eusebius refers on this point, Praep. evang. xii. c. 3, first to Plato de’ 
Legg: lib. xi, then: Kai év r9 BiBAw 08 tov Maxxafaiwy (2 Mace. xv. 14) Aéyera Tepe 
Liag 6 xpooArnc peta THY arad2ZayHv Tod Biov ebxyouevor épao8at bnép TOV Auod, @ rs pov: 
rida ToLovpevoe THY eri ypc GvOpdrav. Aci dé pot Kal 6 WAdtwr tobtowe mWloTEvety. 
21-So Eusebius de Martyr. Palaest. cap. 7, relates that a maiden, Theodosia in Caesarea 
was added to the Martyrs expecting their death, duod @Aogpovorpév, Kat ola eixde tmép 
ob prypovederv atric mpoc Tov KUpLov yevouévove TapaKkadoioa. 


~ 


248 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 193-324. 


vocation of the dead, since the idea was not yet entertained of 
the living being able to make known their requests to them. 


§ 71. 


CHURCH DISCIPLINE. 


Memorials of the ecclesiastical discipline of this period exist in the Epistolae canonicae of 
Dionysius bishop of Alexandria, of Gregory Thaumaturgus (both about 260), and Peter, 
bishop of Alexandria, a.p. 306; the canons of the councils of Illiberis (305 7%), Arles 
(314), Ancyra (315), and Neo-Caesarea (315). All these are found in collections of the 
councils, and in Routh’s Reliquiae Sacrae. 


After the holiest transactions of public worship began to be 
treated as mysteries, the mode of admission to Christianity nat- 
urally assumed another form. A preparatory course preceded 
it, in which the catechumens («atnyotpevor) were instructed by 
suitable teachers (catechistes, doctor audientium)’ and prepared 
for baptism through different classes (dxpodpevor, audientes, yovv- 
kAivortec, genuflectentes, BanriGduevor, pwriGopevor, competentes).? 

The condition of catechumen usually continued several years ; 
but the catechumens often deferred even baptism as long as pos- 
sible, on account of the remission of sins by which it was to be 
accompanied.’ Hence it was often necessary to baptize, the 
sick; and for them the rite of sprinkling was introduced (bap- 
tismus clinicorum, tév KAuwixdv).4 The baptism of children was 
more common.’ ‘The exorcism of those about to be baptized is 


1 At this time the positive doctrines had not yet been kept secret from the catechumens. 
See the rule respecting their instructions in Const. Apost. vii. 39. 

? In Tertullian and Cyprian the audientes and catechumeni are synonymous. In Origen 
contra Cels. iii. 481. ed. de la Rue, Boehmer christl. Kirchl. Alterthumswissenschaft, ii. 
287, and Rothe de Disciplinae arcani origine p. 13 find three classesof catechumens. See, 
on ‘the other side C. F. W. Hasselbach de Catechumenorum ordinibus, quot fuerint in 
vetere Eccl. graeca et lat., 1839, and Redepenning’s Origenes, i. 358. The yovuxAivovtec 
are first’ mentioned by Conc. Neocaesar. can. 5. Nicaen. can. 14. Tob. Pfanner de Cate- 
chumenis antiquae ecclesiae. Francof. et Goth. 1688.12. Bingham Antiquitt: lib. x. (vol. iv.). 

3 Disapproved, Constit. Apost. vi. 15: 'O d6@ Aéyur, 6re érav TeAevTd, BarTivouat, iva 
uh duaptnoe Kal pyrav 76 Baxtioya, obtog dyvorav Eyer Oeod, Kai rig éEavTod dicewc 
eTLAHo“or Try VaveEt, 

* Cf. Cypriani Ep. 76. ad Magnum, that the baptism of them ought not to be regarded 
as invalid, eo quod aqua salutari non loti sunt, sed perfusi. 

5 Comp. § 53, note 20.. Origen found the baptism of children already existing in his cir- 
cle, and defended it. Walli Hist. Baptism. Infant. P. i. p. 72, ss.—Fidus, an African bishop, 
believed, considerandam esse legem circumcisionis antiquae, ut intra octavum diem eum, 
qui natus est, baptizandum et sanctificandum non putaret. On the other hand, Cyprian, 


) 


CHAP. IV.—ECCLESIASTICAL- LIFE. § 71. CHURCH DISCIPLINE. 249 


now distinctly mentioned ;° and all baptized persons, even chil- 
dren, received the eucharist. When the congregations became . 
larger presbyters and deacons baptized in addition to the bishop. 
In the west, however, the baptized had to receive from the bishop 
the imposition of hands.’ In the east the baptizing presbyters - 
performed this ceremony.* 2 rs 

As those who were excommunicated were universally sup- 
posed to be under the dominion of the devil,? as much as the 
unbaptized, they had to undergo, as poenitentes, a similar though 
more séycere probation-period than the catechumens, before they 
could be again received (pacem dare, reconciliare).’° ‘The No-~ 


with his provincial synod (Epist. 64ad Fidum), a baptismo atque a gratia Dei, qui omni 
bus et misericors, et benignus, et pius est, nemifiem per nos debere prohiberi. Wall. l.c 
p. 94, ss. : 
§ Comp. § 53, note 24. Vincentius a Thibari (in Conc. Carth. in the year 256): Ergo 
primo per manos impositionem in exorcismo, secundo per baptismi regenerationem, tunc 
possunt ad Christi pollicitationem venire. 
7 Cyprianus Ep. 73. ad Jubajanum: Nunc quoque apud nos geritur, ut qui in Ecclesia bap- 
tizantur praepositis Ecclesiae offerantur, et per nostram orationem ac manus impositionem 
Spiritum Sanctum consequantur etsignaculo dominicoconsummentur. Conc. Iliib. can. 38, 67. 
8 Constit. Apost. vii. 43, 44. 
9 The expression tapadoivat TH Latravd, 1 Cor. v. 5, 1 Tim. i. 20, referred to excom- 
munication. Origines in lib. Judic. Hom. ii. § 5,in Jer. Hom. xviii. §14, Selecta in Jer. xxix. 4. 
10 In what relation this admission was supposed to stand to the forgiveness of sins may 
be seen from Firmiliani Ep. ad Cypr. (Ep. Cypr. 75): Per singulos annos seniores et prae- 
positi in unum convenimus,—ut si qua graviora sunt, communi consilio dirigantur, lapsis 
quoque fratribus et post lavacrum salutare a diabolo vulneratis per poenitentiam medela 
quaeratur: non quasi a nobis remissionem peccatorum consequantur, sed ut per nos ad in- 
telligentiam delictorum suorum convertantur, et Domino plenius satisfacere cogantur. Cy- 
prian. de Lapsis: Nemosse fallat, nemo se decipiat. Solus Dominus misereri potest: veniam 
peccatis, quae in ipsum commissa sunt, solus potest ille largiri, qui peccata nostra porta- 
vit—Homo Deo esse non. potest major; nec remittere auf donare indulgentia sua servus 
potest quod in Dominum delicto graviore commissum est, Dominus orandus est, Dominus 
nostra satisfactione placandus est, qui negantem negare se dixit, qui omne judicium de 
_ patre solus accepit.—Confiteantur singuli, quaeso vos, fratres dilectissimi, delictum suum, 
dum adhuc qui deliquit in saeculo est, dum admitti confessio ejus potest, dum satisfactio et 
remissio facta per sacerdotes apud Dominum grata est.—Rogamus vos, ut pro vobis Deum ~ 

“rogare possimus. Preces ipsas ad vos prius vertimus, quibus Deum pro vobis ut miserea- 
tar, oramus. (Later, Leo I. about 450, Ep. 89: Sic divinae bonitatis praesidia ordinata, ut 
indulgentia Dei nisi supplicationibus sacerdotum nequeat obtineri). Farther Cypriani Ep: 
52: Pignus vitae in data pace percipiunt :—accepta pace commeatus a Deo datur. Comp. 
above, § 67, note 1. The reconciliation was no actus ordinis, but jurisdictionis, and could 
therefore be transferred from the bishop himself to a deacon. Cypr. Ep. 12, directs, ut qui 
libellos a martyribus acceperunt, et praerogativa eorum apud Deum adjuvari possunt (Ep. 
13; et auxilio eorum adjuvari apud Dominum in delictis suis possunt), si incommodo 
aliquo et infirmitatis periculo occupati fuerint, non expectata praesentia nostra, apud 
presbyterum quemcunque praesentem, vel si presbyter repertus non fuerit, et urgere 
exitus coeperit, apud diaconum quoque exomologesin facere delicti sui possint : ‘ut manu 
eis in poenitentiam’ imposita veniant ad Dominum cum pace, quam dari martyres litteris 
ad nos factis desideraverunt. 


250 : FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IIT.—A:D. 193-324. 


vatian disputes occasioned the: orientals to appoint a mpsoBitepoc 
 éni tij¢ weravoiag in the separate churches ;"' and this seems to 
have had an influence in bringing it about that public penance, 


‘even at the end of the third century, had a succession of grades 


similar to the probation-period of the catechumens.* The four 
gradus or stationes poenitentiae were npéoxAavotc, dxpdaccc, b76- 
MT@OLC, vaTacLG (mpockAaiovTec, xetpacovres, flentes, hiemantes, 
dxpodpevo, audientes, yovvedivovrec, bnonintovrec, genuflectentes, 
substrati, ovvordyevor, consistentes). Excommunication fell 
only on public, gross offenses. Other sinners were referred to 
the admonition of the more experienced brethren.” 


11 Socrates, v. c. 19: ’A@’ ob Navatiavoi tig ExxAnotiac dtexpiOncav,—oi éxioxorot TO 
ExKAnovaoriK@ Kavéve Tov mpecBbrepov Tov éni Tij¢ peravoiag mpocébecav, éxuwe dv ol 
Herd To Baxtioua mraicavtec éxi Tow TpoBAnOévtog TobTov xpecBuTépov eSouohoyovrat 
Ta duapthuata. Cf. Sozomenus, viii. c. 16. - 
12 Cyprian knows nothing ofthese grades. He sets forth the arrangement to be pursued 
with the penitent, Epist. 11: Nam cum in minoribus delictis, quae non in Deum commit- 
tuntur, poenitentia agatur justo tempore, et exomologesis fiat inspecta vita ejus qui agit 
poenitentiam, nec ad communicationem venire quis possit, nisi prius illi ab episcopo et clero 
manus fuerit imposita: quanto magis in his gravissimis et extremis delictis caute omnia— _ 
obsérvari oportet: In like manner they are not found in the course prescribed for penitents 
in Const. Apost. ii. 16. The grades are first‘mentioned in (since Gregor. Thaumat. Epist. 
canonica, can. ii.,.as Morinus de Poen. lib. vi. c. 1, § 9, has shown, is spurious, and arose 
from Basilii Epist. 217, or Canonica, iii. ¢. 75, see Routh Reliqu. Sacr. ii. p. 458, ss.) 
Cone. Ancyr. ec. 4. Cone. Nicaen.c. 11. J. Morinus de Disciplina in administratione 
sacramenti poenitentiae. Paris 1651. fol. J.Dallaeus de Sacramentali s. auriculari Lati- 
norum confessione. Genev. 1661. 8. Sam. Basnagii Annales politico-eccles. t. ii. p. 475. 
Bingham, lib. xviii. in vol. viii. 

3 Origenes in Psalm. xxxvii. Hom. ii. § 6: Oportet. peccatum non celare intrinsecus. 
Fortassis enim sicut ii, qui habent intus inclusam escam indigestam, aut humoris vel phleg- 


- matis stomacho graviter et moléste immanentis abundantiam, si vomuerint, relevantar : ita 


. etiam hi qui peccaverunt, si quidem occultant, et retinent intra se peccatum, intrinsecus 


urgentur et propemodum suffocantur a phlegmate vel humore peccati: si autem ipse sui 
accusator fiat, dum accusat semetipsum et confitetur, simul evomit ef delictum, atque 
omnem morbi digerit causam. Tantummodo circumspice diligentius, cui debeas confiteri 
peccatum tuum. Proba prius medicum cui debeas causam languoris exponere, qui sciat 
infirmari cum infirmante, flere cum flente, qui condolendi et compatiendi noverit discipli- 
nam : ut ita demum, si quid ille dixerit, qui se prius et eruditam medicum ostenderit et 


- misericordem, si quid consilii dederit, facias, et sequaris, si intellexerit et praeviderit, talem 


esse languorem tuum, qui in conventu totius Ecclesia exponi debeat et curari, ex quo for- 
tassis et ceteri aedificari poterunt, et tu ipse facile sanari : multa hoc deliberatione, et satis © 
perito medici illius consilio procurandum est. Ofcourse application was especially made 
to the clergy : hence Origenes in Levit. Hom. ii. § 4: Est—per poenitentiam remissio 
peccatorum, cum lavat peccator in lacrymis stratam suum,—et cum non erubescit sacerdoti 
Domini indicare peccatum suum, et quaerere medicinam. In Leyit. Hom. v.§4: Discant 
sacerdotes Domini, qui Ecclesiis praesunt, quia pars eis data est cum his, quorum delicta 
repropitiaverint. Quid autem est repropitiare delictam? Si assumseris peccatorem, et 
monendo, hortando, docendo, instruendo adduxeris eum ad poenitentiam ab errore correx- 
eris, a vitiis emendaveris, et effeceris eum talem, ut ei converso propitius fiat Deus pro 
delicto, repropitiasse diceris. 


\ 


CHAP. IV.—ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. § 71. CHURCH DISCIPLINE. 251 


The time of penance usually continued several years—some- 
times even to the hour of death.*. In Africa and Spain, re-ad- 
mission was forever forbidden in case of certain offenses.’ This 
strictness was relaxed only when confessors interceded on behalf 
of the lapsed.® But during the Decian persecution, the mar- 
tyrs in Africa abused this privilege granted them by custom; so 
much that Cyprian was obliged to oppose them.’7 Yet this 


14 The determinations Constitt. Apost. ii. 16, 21-24, are distinguished by great are 
Comp. Drey iiber die Constit. S. 51. 

15 Comp. § 53, note 39, § 59, note 10. So also Cyprian before the Decian persecution, 
Testim. adv. Judaeos, iii. c. 28: Non posse in ecclesia remitti ei, qui in Deum deliquerit. 


On the contrary in Rome the penitent lapsi were admitted on the sick bed. Ep. Cleri 


Rom. ad Cler. Carthag. Among Cyprian’s letters, Ep. 2. 

16 Comp. above, § 53, note 44. Dionysius Alex. ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 42, 3: Ot @eioe 
udprupec,—ol viv Tod Xpiotod mdpedpor kai THe BactAciacg abrod Kotvwvol, Kai péToxae 
THC Kpioewc abrod, Kai ovvdiKalovtec abt, TOv TaparentoKdtav adeAgav—Tiv émLoTpo- 
ony Kai weravocav idévrec, OextHy Te yevéoOar dvvamévny TO GeG—SoKipaoartec, elaedéé- 
avTo Kai cvv#yayov Kal cvvéctyoar, kal TpocevxyOv abroic kai goTidcewy éExorvGvycav.— 
ti huiv mpakréoy ; cbupndor Kai 6uoyvepovec abtoicg KataoTGuer, Kai tyv Kplow abtér 
kai THY xdplv ovAdswpev, Kai Toi¢ éAenBeioww bx’ abrdv ypnorevodyueba ; 7 TRV Kpiow 
abréy Gdexrov woinodpeba, kal doxiuacta¢ abrode tic éxeiver yvdune éxorhowper, 
Kal THY YoHOTOTHTA AuTHowmED ; Kai THY TaE dvackEevdcwper ; 

17 On these cases see Cypriani Epist. 10, 11, 14, 29. Epist. Luciani (Cyprian. 21): 
Cum benedictus martyr Paulus adhuc in corpore esset, vocavit me et dixit mihi: Luciane, 
coram Christo dico tibi, ut si quis post arcessitionem meam abs te pacem petierit, da in 
nomine meo. Epist. 16: Universi Confessores Cypriano Papae, Salutem! Scias, nos univer- 
sis, de quibus apud te ratio constiterit, quid post commissum egerint, dedisse pacem, et 
hanc formam per te et aliis Episcopis innotescere voluimus. Optamus te cum sanctis 
Martyribus pacem habere. Praesente de Clero et Exorcista et Lectore, Lucianus scrip- 
sit.—Cyprian. Epist. 22, ad Cleram Romanum: Quae res majorem nobis conflat invidiam, 
utnos cum singulorum causas audire et excutere coeperimus, videamur multis negare, 
quod se nunc omnes jactant a Martyribus et Confessoribus accepisse. Denique hujus se- 
ditionis origo jam coepit. Nam in provincia nostra per aliquot civitates in Praepositos impe- 
tus per multitudinem faetus est, et pacem, quam semel cuncti a martyribus et Confes- 
soribus datam clamitabant, confestim sibi repraesentari coégerunt,’ territis et subactis 
Praepositis suis, qui.ad resistendum minus virtute animi et robore fidei praevalebant. 
Apud nos etiam quidam turbulenti, qui vix a nobis in-praeteritum regebantur, et in nos- 
tram praesentiam differebantur, per hanc epistolam (Confessorum Ep. 16) velut quibusdam 
facibus accensi, plus exardescere, et pacem sibi datem extorquere coeperunt. Cyprian’s 
decisions regarding the praerogativa Martyrum (see Ep. 12, above, note 10.) Lib. de Lap- 
sis: Credimus quidem posse apud judicem plurimum Martyrum merita et opera justorum: 
sed cum judicii vies venerit, cum post occasum saeculi hnjus et mundi ante tribunal Christi 
populus ejus adstiterit. Caeterum si quis praepropera festinatione temerarius remissio- 


“nem peccatorum dare se cunctis putat posse, aut audet Domini praecepta rescindere, non 


tantum nibil prodest, sed et obest lapsis. Provocasse est iram non servasse sententiam 


‘nee misericordiam prius Dei deprecandum putare, sed contempto Domino de sua facultate, 


praesumere:—Mandant martyres aliquid fieri? sed si justa, si licita ;—ante est, ut sciamus 
illos de Deo impetrasse quod postulant, tunc facere quod mandant. Cyprian deferred the 
final decision respecting the lapsed to a council which was to be held after persecution 
had ceased, and after his return (Ep. 9, 11); but he allowed that before this those lapsi 
furnished with libellis pacis might be readmitted on the sick bed. Ep. 12, 13, see above, 
note 10, Comp, Rettherg’ 8 pans: S. 64, 


) 


e 


252 FIRST PERIGD.—DIV. II.—A.D. 193-324. 


dispute, as well as the great number of the lapsed, occasioned a 
renunciation of the principle, of always refusing reconciliation 

with the church to the lapsed, immediately after the Decian 
persecution, in Africa.® On the other hand, this Montanistic 
rigor continued in its greatest extent beyond this period, in 
Spain.® 


18 Respecting the Synod held at Carthage on this account, 251, and in justification of it, 
see Cypriani Ep. 52 ad Antonianum: Et quidem primum, quoniam de meo quogue actu 
motus videris, mea apud te et persona et causa purganda est, ne me aliquis existimet a 
proposito meo leviter recessisse, et cum evangelicum vigorem primo et inter initia defen- 
derim, postmodum videar animum meum a disciplina et censura priore flexisse, ut his, 
qui libellis conscientiam suam maculaverint, vel nefanda sacrificia commiserint, laxan- 
dam pacem putaverim. Quod utrumque non sine librata diu et ponderata ratione a me 
factum est. Nam cum—proelium gloriosi certaminis in persecutione ferveret, toto hortatu 
et pleno impetu militum vires fuerant excitandae, et maxime lapsoram mentes—fortiter 
animandae, ut»poenitentiae viam non solum precibus et lamentationibus sequerentur, sed 
—ad confessionis potius ardorem et martyrii gloriam nostris increpiti vocibus provocaren- 
tur.—Secundum quod tamen ante fuerat destinatum, persecutione sopita, copiosus Epis- 
coporum numerus—in unum convenimus, et scripturis divinis ex utraque parte prolatis, 
. temperamentum salubri moderatione libravimus, ut nec in totum spes communicationis 
et pacis lapsis denegaretur, ne plus desperatione deficerent, nec tamen rursus censura 
evangelica solveretur, ut ad communicationem temere prosilirent; sed traheretur diu 
poenitentia, et rogaretur dolenter paterna clementia, et examinarentur causae et. volun- 
- tates et necessitates singuloram.—Ac si minus sufficiens Episcoporum in Africa numerus 
videbitur, etiam Romam super hac re scripsimus ad Cornelium collegam nosttum; qui et 
#pse cum plurimis coépiscopis habito concilio in eandem nobiscum sententiam pari gravi- 
tate et salubri moderatione consensit—Nec putes, frater carissime, hine aut virtutem 
fratrum minui aut martyria deficere, quod lapsis laxata sit poenitentia, et quod poeniten- 
tibus spes pacis oblata.—Nam et moechis a nobis poenitentiae tempus conceditur et pax 

datur (comp. § 53, note 39, § 59, note 4). Non tamen iccirco virginitas in ecclesia deficit, 
etc.—Miror autem quosdam sic obstinatos esse, ut dandam non putent lapsis poenitentiam, 
aut poenitentibus existiment veniam denegandam, cum scriptum sit: Memento unde 
éecideris, et age poenitentiam, et fac priora opera (Apoc. ii. 5). After quoting many 
similar passages: Quod legentes scilicet et tenentes neminem putamus a fructu satis- 
factionis et spe pacis arcendum, cum sciamus juxta scripturarum divinarum fidem, auctore 
et hortatore ipso Deo, et ad agendam poenitentiam peccatores redigi, et veniam atque 
indulgentiam poenitentibus non denegari. In this sense it was even made a general 
church law by.the Cone. Nicaen. c. 13: “Qore, ei rig. &odebor, Tod TeAevTaiov.Kal. dvay- 
Katotatov égodiov un &moorepeiobat. 

19-€omp. Concil. Iliberit. above § 59, note 10. So says Pacian, bishop of Barcelona, 
about 370, in his book of capital sins: Paraeneticus ad poenitentiam (Bibl. PP. max. t. iv.) 
peccatis capitalibus: Reliqua peccata meliorum operum compensatione curantur. Haec 
quicunque post fidem fecerit, Dei faciem non videbit. Cf Innocentii I. Epist. 6, ad Exsu- 
perium Episc: Tolosanum (in the year 405) c..2: Et hoc quaesitum est, quid de his obser- 
vari oporteat, qui post baptismum omni tempore incontinentiae voluptibns dediti, in ex- 
¢remo fine vitae suae poenitentiam simul et reconciliationem communionis exposcunt, 
De his observatio prior durior, posterior interveniente misericordia inclinatior. Nam 
<onsuetudo prior tenuit, ut concederetur poenitentia, sed communio negaretur. 


CHAP. IV.—ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. § 72. SCHISM OF FELICISSIMUS. 283 


Boe § 72. 


(CONTINUATION.) CONTROVERSY CONCERNING MATTERS OF CHURCH 
DISCIPLINE. 


1. The schism of Felicissimus in Carthage.' A party 
already dissatisfied with the selection of Cyprian as bishop, 
afterward continued in a divided and hostile relation to the 


bishop, who was. extremely jealous of his dignity, The Decian 
persecution put an end to the dispute arising between Cyprian: - 
and the presbyter (Vovatus.? But during that trying time, 

some presbyters readmitted the lapsed (Cypriani Ep. 9) solely 

on the strength of the libelli pacis of the martyrs, which were | 
too freely granted, without regard to the bishop of Carthage, 

who had been obliged to leave his church. Cyprian found fault 

with this. But the party of the dissatisfied increased in con- 

sequence, at whose head the deacon Félicissimus appeared, and 

to which several confessors also were now added. ‘This party 

now refused to obey the commands of the bishop, who had fled 

from persecution,* and went on adding to its numbers by the 

reception of the lapsed.‘ After Cyprian’s return (251) they 

were excommunicated, and chose Fortunatus for their nd 

but do not appear to have long survived. 


1 Sources: Cyprian. Ep. 38, 39, 40, 42, 55. Walch’s Ketzerhist. ii. 288. Rettberg’s 
Cyprianus, §. 89. 

2 At the time of the Novatian controversy Cyprian says of him, Ep. 49: Idem est Nova- 
tus, qui apud nos primum discordiae et schismatis incendium seminavit, qui quosdam 
istic ex fratribus ab Episcopo segregavit, qui in ipsa persecutione ad evertendas fratrum 

-mentes alia quaedam persecutio nostris fuit. Ipse est, qui Felicissimum satellitem suum, . 
Diaconum, nec permittente me, nec sciente, sua factione et ambitione constituit. —Urgenti- 
bus fratribus imminebat cognitionis dies, quo apud nos causa ejus ageretur, nisi Perea 
antevenisset. 

3 In particular, Felicissimus withstood a commission sent by Cyprian to inquire about 
the condition of the poor. Cypr. Ep. 38. 

. Cypriani Epist. 40 ad Plebem: Conjurationis suae memores, et antiqua tig: ‘egiden 
Episcopataum meum, imo contra suffragium vestrum et Dei judicium venena retinentes, 
instaurant veterem contra nos impugnationem suam, et sacrilegas machinationes insidiis 
solitis denuo revocant. Hi fomenta olim quibusdam confessoribus et hortamenta tribue- 
bant, ne concordarent cum episcopo suo, ne ecclesiasticam disciplinam cum fide et quiete 
juxta praecepta dominica continerent, ete—nunc se ad lapsorum perniciem venenata sua 
deceptione verterunt, ut aegros et saucios—a medela vulneris sui avocent, ef intermissis 
precibus et orationibus, quibus Dominus longa et continua satisfactione placandus est, ad 
exitiosam temeritatem mendacio captiosae pacis invitent. 


O54. . FIRST PERIOD.—DIV: TL—-A.D. 193-324. 


2. Novatian schism.’ The presbyter Novatian (in Eusebius 
Noovdroc¢) was dissatisfied with the choice of the bishop: Corne- 
_tius at Rome (251) because Cornelius, in his opinion, had con- 
ducted himself with too great lenity toward the lapsed. In the 
controversy that,now ensued, in which the Carthaginian pres- 
byter Novatus proved particularly active in favor of Novatian,*® 
the latter ‘returned to the old principle that none of the lapsed 
ought to be admitted to church communion.’ Hence arose a 
division in the church. Novatian was chosen bishop by. his 
party at Rome. Though the other bishops, particularly Cy- 
prian at Carthage, and Dionysius at Alexandria, stood on the 
side of Cornelius, yet. many in different countries joined the 
strict party.’ At first the Novatians («a@apot) declared them- 
selves only against the re-admission of the lapsi;® but after- 
ward they fully returned to the old African notion, that all who 
had defiled themselves by gross sins after baptism should be for- 
ever excluded from the church,'° because the church itself would 
be tainted if they were received again. In accordance with 


5 Sources: Cyprian. Epist. 41-52. Cornelii Rom. Ep. ed Fabium Antioch. (ap. Euseb. 
vi. 43), Dionys. Alex. Ep. ad Novatianum (ib. c. 45), et ad Dionysium Rom. (ibid. vii. 8). 
W alch’s Ketzerhist. ii. 185. _ 

6 Although he had formerly ordained Felicissimus deacon (note 2), it does not thence 
follow that he afterward was of the same opinion with him regarding the readmission of 
the lapsed, and still later that he came over to the opposite view at Rome. See Mosheim 
de rebus Christ. ante C.M. p. 518. Perhaps it was even dissatisfaction with his party 
that urged him to go from Carthage to Rome. 

' 7 Formerly Novatian’s opinion was milder, in the letter written by him, Epist. Cleri 
Rom. ad Cypr. (Ep. Cypr. 31), ef. Cypr. Ep. 52. 

8 Even Fabius, bishop of Antioch, was éroxatakdAtvouevoc TH oxiouats (Euseb. vi. 44), 
and at a Synod in Antioch to} Noovdérov kparévew tivic érexeipovy Td cxicua (1. c. 46). 
Cf. Socrat. iv. 28. Respecting Marcian, bishop of Arles, see § 68, note 14. 

2 So Novatian, in a circular-letter, required all the churches (Socrates, iv. 28), py 
dexecbae Tove éxcOukérag ei¢ TA wvoTHpLAa* GAAA mpotpérety bev abtode sig perdvotar, 
tiv 6& ovyxepyoww éxitpérery Oe, TH dvvapévy Kai eovolav Exovte ovyxepety éjap- 
ThyaTa. Hence Cyprian, Ep. 52, accuses Novatian of inconsistency: Aut si se cordis et 
renis scrutatorum constituit et judicem, per omnia aequaliter judicet, et—fraudatores et 
moechos a latere atque a comitatu suo separet, quando multo et gravior et pejor sit 
moechi quam libellatici causa. O frustrandae fraternitatis irrisio, O miserorum—caduca 
deceptio !—hortari ad satisfactionis poenitentiam, et subtrahere de satisfactione medici- 
nam: dicere fratribus nostris: plange et lacrimas funde, et diebus ac noctibus ingemisce, 
et pro abluendo et purgando delicto tuo largiter et frequenter operare, sed extra ecclesiam 
post omnia ista morieris: quaecumque ad pacem pertinent pees sed nullam pacem, quam 
quaeris, accipies. 

10 Acesius, a Novatian bishop, at the Council of Nice, says (Socrates, i. 10): Ob yoy 
Tove ueTa TO Bartioua HuaprynKérac captiav, hv xpo¢ Odvatov KaAodaty ai Beiar ypagai; 
Ti¢ Kotvaviac TOV Oeiwv wvornplar GitodcBat* GAP? ent perdvotav ev abrodve mpotérerr, 
tArida 62 Tie adécewe uy Tapd TOv lepéwy, GAZA Tapa Tod Beod ExdéyecOar, Toe duve- 
uévov kai eoveiav Exovtoc cvyxapeiy Guaptypuara. 


¥ 


CH. IV.—ECCL. LIFE. § 72, CONTR. ABOUT BAPTISM OF HERETICS. 256 


this view they declared all other churches to have forfeited the 
rights of a Christian church; and baptized anew those who 
came over to them." This pasty was widely extended, and 
continued for a long time.’* In Phrygia they united with the 
remnant of the Montanists.’* 

3. Controversy concerning the baptism of heretics. The 
custom prevalent in Africa, Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor, of 
regarding reclaimed heretics as unbaptized, was considered ob- 
jectionable at Rome,'® where they were prepared for re-admis- 


sion without baptism, by passing through the gradus poeniten- 


tiae ; especially since the time the Novatians began to re-bap- 
tize the Christians who had joined them. In Africa, too, there 
arose doubts regarding it; but two Carthaginian councils (259, 
256) confirmed the old practice. When the second council 
informed Stephen, bishop of Rome (253-257) of its decisions, 
in a synodical letter (Ep. Cypr. 72), it received from him a 
haughty reply, disapproving of them.’® This led to an inter- 
change of violent letters between Stephen and Cyprian.’’ The 


11 Such also was the practice of the African church. So Tertullian de Baptismo, 15, de 
Praesc. 12; de Pudicit. 19, and a council in Carthage under Agrippinus, about 200 (Cypr. 
Ep. 71, 73). Cf. Miinteri primordia Eccl. Afric. p. 150, ss. 

12 Constantine's forbearance toward them, Cod. Theodos. lib. xvi. tit. 5, 1. 2: Novatianos 
non adeo comperimus praedamnatos, ut iis, quae petiverunt, crederemus minime largienda. 
‘Ttaque ecclesiae suae domos, et loca sepulchris apta sine inquietudine eos firmiter possi- 
dere praecipimus, etc. (A.D. 326).. The mildness of the Nicene council toward — Can. 
Nic. 8: Kadapove yerpofetovuévorc wéverv ob tac bv TO KATY. 

13 Comp. especially Socrates, iv. 28. The Phrygian Novatians forbade second marriage 


'' ibid. v. 22), and celebrated the passover with the Quartodecimani (iv. 28, v. 21). 


14° Walch's Ketzerhist: ii.310. Rettberg’s Cyprianus, S. 156. 

18 The testimonies for Africa, see note 11. For Egypt Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 375: 
To Bérticua 76 aipetixoy obk olkeiov Kai yvfotov bdwp. Comp. Dionysius Alex., below, 
note 20.- For Syria, Constit. Apost.'vi. 15. For Asia Minor, the two councils in Iconium 
(in the year 235, see Firmilian. in Epist. Std i 75), and Synnada, cf. Dionys. Alex. ap. 
Euseb. vii. 7, 3. 

16 Cyprian’s principle was (Ep. 70): Neminem foris baptizari extra Ecclesiam posse, 
‘eum sit baptisma unum in sancta Ecclesia constitutum. On the other hand Stephen (Ep. 


74): Si quis ergo a quacunque haeresi venerit ad vos, nihil imovetar nisi quod traditum 


est, ut manus illi imponatur in poenitentiam.—Qui in nomine Jesu Christi ubicunque et 


* 


‘quomodocunque baptizantur, innovati et sanctificati judicentur.. Cyprian adds: In fantum Z 


_ Stephani fratris nostri obstinatio dura prorapit, ut etiam de Marcionis baptismo, item 
Valentini et sp aione, et caeterorum blasphemantium in Deum patrem contendat filios 
Deo nasci: 

11 The earlier letters of Cyprian on this affair are Ep. 70-73. Notices of the controversial 
writings between him and Stephen are found in Cypr. Epist. 74, ad Pompeium and Fir- 
miliani Ep. ad Cypr. (Ep. Cypr. 75). Cyprian says of Stephen's letter (Ep. 74) Caetera 
vel superba vel’ ad rem non pertinentia, vel sibi ipsi contraria, quae imperite atque 
improvide scripsit, ete-—Quae ista obstinatio est, quaeve praesumtio, huamanum tradi- 
tionem divinae dispositioni anteponere, nec animadvertere, indignari et irasci Deum, 


256. FIRST PERIOD—DIV. TIL—A.D. 193-24, 


| fiemer broke off all communion with the ASriooaiet ; but notwith- 
standing this they repeated in the most emphatic terms. their 
opinions at a third council at Carthage (1st Sept. 256)..° _Fir- 
milian, bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia, assured them (Epist. 
‘Cypr. 75) with bitter observations on Stephen,"* of the full as- 
sent of the churches in his province; and Dionysius also, bishop 
of Alexandria, decidedly condemned the conduct of Stephen.” 
After Stephen’s death, peace’ was immediately restored to the 


quoties divina praecepta solvit et praeterit humana traditio—Nec consuetudo, quae apud 
. quosdam obrepserat, impedire debit, quominus veritas praevaleat et vincat.. Nam con- 
suetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est. On the other hand (Ep. 75): Non pudet Ste- 
phanum—Cyprianum pseudochristum et pseudoapostolum et dolosum operarium dicere: 
The consequences to be deduced from this controversy respecting the papal supremacy 
afterward asserted, may be seen in J. La Placette Observatt. historico-eccl., quibus 
-‘eruitur veteris ecclesiae sensus circa Pontif. Rom. potestatem in definiendis fidei rebus. 

Amsterd. 1695. 8, p. 102, ss. 

18 The Acts of it in Augustini de Baptismo contra Donatistas, lib. vi. et vii—Also in 
Cypriani Opp. 

19 Ex. gr. gratiam referre Stephano in isto possumus, quod per illius inhumanitatem 
nunc effectum sit, ut fidei et sapientiae vestrae experimentum caperemus.—Sed haec 
interim, quae a Stephano gesta sunt, praetereantur, ne dum audaciae et insolantiae ejus 
meminimus, de rebus ab eo improbe gestis longiorem moestitiam nobis inferamus.—Atque 
ego in hac parte juste indignor ad hanc tam apertam et manifestam Stephani stultitiam, 
quod qui sic de Episcopatus sui loco gloriatur, et se successionem Petri tenere contendit, 
super quem fundamenta Ecclesiae collocata sunt, multas alias petras inducat.—Lites et 
‘ dissensiones quantas pardasti (Stephane) per ecclesias totius mundi? Peccatum vero quam 
magnum tibi exaggerasti, quando te a tot gregibus scidisti? Exscidisti enim temet 
ipsum: noli te fallere. Siquidem ille est vere schismaticus, qui se a communione Eccle- 
siasticae unitatis apostatam fecerit (consequently not from a Roman centrum unitatis). 
Dum enim putas omnes a te abstinere posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti, etc. This 
letter, so unpleasant to the Romish see (extant in 26 codd.), was purposely omitted in the 
. edition of Cyprian. Romae ap. Paul. Manutium. 1563, and first printed in that of Guil. 
Morellii. Paris. 1564, who is bitterly censured for it by Latinus and Pamelius. Christ. 
Lupus (ad Tertull. libr. de Praescr. Bruxell. 1675. 4) first denied the authenticity of the 
letter. A Franciscan Raimund Missori (in duas celeberr. epist. Firm. et Cypr. disputt. 
crit. Venet. 1733. 4), the Jesuit R. J. Tournemine (Mémoires de Trévoux de 1734, p. 
2246, ss), the Franciscan Marcellinus Molkenbubr (in two dissertations. Miinster. 1790 
and 1793. 4), and A. Ant.-Morcelli Africa christiana, ii. 138, declare, moreover, that 
Cyprian’s letters respecting the baptism of heretics are forged. These arbitrary assump- 
tions, which none else has thought fit to repeat, have been refuted by J. H. Sbaralea germana 
8. Cypr. et Afrorum necnon Firmiliani opinio de haereticorum baptism. Bonon. 1741. 4, 
and in Academic dissertations by G. G. Preu. Jenae. 1738, and D. Cotta. Tub. 1740. 

20 Dion, Ep. ad Sixtum II. (successor of Stephen, 257) ap. Euseb. vii. 5: ’ExeoréAnet 
(ZréGavoc) nev obv mpdtepov Kal rept ‘EAévov Kal wept DipuAcavod Kai révTwv Tév TE 
ano tie KeAtkiag kai Karradoxiag xai Tadariac, cai ravrov tov ésq¢ duopobvtwr éOver, 
Oc ob02 éxeivolg Kotvarhowr 61a THY abTHY TabTHv aitiav, émeLdH TOvC alpeTLKode, ono, 
avaBarrigover. Kal oxéret 76 péyebocg Tob mpdyparog. "Ovra¢ yup doyyata rept Tob- 
tov yéyovey éy Taig peylorai Tov éxtoxérwy ovvddotc, w¢ mevOdvouat, ote Tove 
Tpoctovrac amo aipécewv mpoxatnxnbévrac, eita drodotecOa Kai dvaxabaipecbar Tdv 
Tig maraic Kat axabdprov Coping pirov. Kai epi tobtwy abtod ravrav deduevog, 
énéotetAa. Hieronymus Catal. c. 69: Dionysius—in Cypriani et Africanae aya dogma 
consentiens de haecreticis rebaptizandis. 


t 


CHAP. IV.—ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. § 73. DONATIST SCHISM. 257 


church,”! although difference of opinion on the disputed point 
continued for. a long time.”” In the mean time, even now, an 
intermediate opinion had arisen in the western church,”* which 
afterward became the prevailing one. 

4. Meletian schism. During the Diocletian ceri 
Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis in Thebais, maintained that the 
lapsed should not be admitted to penance before peace should 
have been restored. On this ground he withdrew from his me- 
tropolitan Peter of Alexandria (306), and began to assume the 
duties of the metropolitan’s office among the churches of his 

party.* This schism continued more than a century. 
5. Donatist schism.> As early as the Diocletian persecu- 
tion there arose at Carthage a fanatical party in opposition to ~ 


the bishop Mensurius and his archdeacon Caecilianus, because 
they had contended against the perverseness with which many 
Christians sought for martyrdom partly from fanaticism, and 
partly from’ still more impure motives.** When, therefore, after 


- 21 Pontius in Vita Cypriani, where he speaks of his martyrdom: Jam de Xisto (suc- 
cessor of Stephen), bono et pacifico Sacerdote, ac propterea beatissimo Martyre, ab Urbe 
nuncius venerat. 

22 Accordingly, the Greek fathers, even of the fourth century, reject the baptism of 
_ heretics. See below, § 101, note 10. y 

23 Can. Arelat. 8: De Afiis, quod propria lege sua utuntur vt rebaptizent, placolt utsi - 
ad ecclesiam aliquis de haeresi venerit, interrogent eum symbolum ; et si perviderint, eum 
in Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto esse baptizatum, manus ei tantum imponatur, ut accipiat 
Spiritum Sanctum. Quod si interrogatus non responderit hanc trinitatem,-baptizetur. 

24 Some original documents relating to this controversy, especially a letter from four 
Egyptian bishops to Meletius, have been communicated to the public by Scipio Maffei 
Osservazioni letterarie, t. iii. p.11, ss. (Verona. 1738). The account of Epiphanius Haer. 68, 
which is favorable to Meletius, agrees best with this letter. Different, but partial against - 
Meletius, is the representation of Athanasius Apologia contra Arianos, § 59, which Socrates, 
Sozomen, and Theodoret for the most part follow. Walch, iv. 355. Neander, ii. i. 463. 

25 Sources: Optatus (bishop of Mileve about 368) de schismate Donatistarum libb. vii. 
(vi?) ed. L. E. du Pin. Paris. 1700 (in which edition also: Monumenta vetera ad 
Donatist. hist. pertinentia and historia Donatistarum). Augustinus in several works (all 
contained in the 9th part of the Benedictine edition, in its appendix are also Excerpta et 
scripta vetera ad Donatistarum historiam pertinentia), for example contra Epistolam Par- 
meniani libb..3, de Baptismo libb, 7, contra literas Petiliani libb. 3, contra Cresconium ~ 
libb. 4, breviculas collationum contra Donatistas libb. 3, ete —Cf. Valesius de schismate 
Donatist. diss. (appended to his edition of Eusebius). Melchior Leydecker Historia 
Recles. Africanae. Ultraj. 1690. 4. p. 467. Historia Donatistarum ex Norisianis schedis 
excepta in H. Norisii Opp. om. ed. a Petro et Hieron. fratribus Balleriniis. . (Veron. 1729. 
1732. 4 t. fol.) Tom. iv. Walch, iv.3. Neander, ii. i. 387. 

- 28 Comp. the contents of a letter addressed by Mensurius to Secundus, bishop of Tigisis, 
in Augestin. brevicul. collat. diei iii. c.'23, note 25: Eos, qui se offerrent persecutionibus - 
non comprehensi,” et ultro dicerent, se habere scripturas, qaas non traderent, a quibus 
hoc nemo quaesierat, displicuisse Mensurio, et ab eis honorandis eum prohibuisse Chris- 
tianos. Quidam etiam: in eadem epistola facinorosi arguebantur et fisci debitores, qui 


VoL. fs 


258 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 193-324. 


Mensurius’s death (311), Caecilianus was chosen his successor, 
this party set up in opposition to him Majorinus, who was soon 
succeeded by Donatus the great (313). In this proceeding 
they were supported by the Numidian bishops, particularly Se-: 
cundus, bishop of Tigisis, and Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae. 
The pretext was, that Caecilianus had been consecrated by a 
“traditor,” Feliz, bishop of Aptunga. 'This pars Majorint, 
afterward called pars Donati, Donatistae, who gained many 
adherents in Africa, on account of their attaching great value 
to purity in the church, brought their complaint against Caecil- 
ian before Constantine: the first example of spiritual affairs 
being laid before a civil ruler for his decision. Constantine at - 
first. intrusted Miltiades, bishop of Rome, along with three 
Gallic bishops (313) with an inquiry into the affair; and aft- 
erward a council was assembled at Arles for the purpose of in- 
_vestigating it (314). Both decisions, as well as the judgment 
of the emperor himself (316) occasioned by a new appeal, proved 
unfavorable to the Donatists. But though severe laws also had 
been passed against them, yet they persisted in their opposition, 
‘and continued full of enmity toward the catholic church, for 
more than a century in Africa. 


§ 73. 
ASCETICISM. 


In this division of time, we still find in the church a living 
consciousness of Christian freedom, which was manifested, espe- 


occasione persecutiones vel carere vellent onerosa multis debitis vita, vel purgare se 
putarent, et quasi abluere facinora sua vel certe adquirere pecuniam, et in custodia 
deliciis perfrui de obsequio Christianoruam. With this coincides what had been objected 
to Caecilian immediately after his election (l. c. cap. 14, no. 26): Cum esset diaconus, 
victum afferri martyribus in custodia constitutis prohibuisse dicebatur. There is manifestly 
great exaggeration in the Donatist Actis Saturnini presbyteri, Felicis, Dativi, Ampelii et 
aliorum, ¢c: 17 (in Baluzii Miscellan. t. ii. p. 72, da Pin Monumenta, p. 156: On the other 
hand, this appendix is left out in the Actis SS. and apud Ruinart where he is called): 
(Mensurius) tyranno saevior, carnifice crudelior, idoneum sceleris sui ministrum diaconum 
suum elegit Caecilianum: idemque lora et flagra cum armatis ante fores carceris ponit, 
ut ab ingressu atque aditu cunctos, qui victum potumque in carcerem martyribus affere- 
bant; gravi affectos injuria propulsaret. Et caedebantur a Caeciliano passim qui’ ad 
alendos martyres veniebant, sitientibus intus in vinculis confessoribus, pocula frangeban- 
tur ante carceris limina, cibi passim lacerandi canibus spargebantur, etc. _ 


CHAP. IV.-ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. §73. ASCETICISM. 259 


cially at the beginning of the period, in opposition to the ascetic 
precepts of the Montanists.' Fasting continued to be left to 
the free choice of each; except that ecclesiastical custom had 
determined certain days as especially appropriate for that pur- - 
pose, which were very different in different churches.’ Besides, 
on particular occasions the churches were summoned by their 
bishops to a general fast;* and in like manner certain fasts 
were imposed on the penitents.* External asceticism generally 


1 Tertull. de Jejuniis, c. 2: Certe in evangelio illos dies jejuniis determinatos putant 


' (Psychici), in quibus ablatus est sponsus, et Hos esse jam solos legitimos jejuniorum 


Christianorum, abolitis legalibus et propheticis vetustatibus. Itaque de caetero indif- 
ferenter jejunandum, ex arbitrio, non ex imperio novae disciplinae, pro temporibus et 
causis uniuscujusque. Sic et Apoesteles observasse, nullum aliud imponentes jugum 
certorum ef in commune omnibus obeundorum jejuniorum: proinde nec stationum, quae 
et-ipsae suos quidem dies habeant, quartae feriae et sextae, passive tamen currant, neque 
sub lege praecepti—cum fides libera in Christo ne Judaicae quidem legi abstinentiam 
quorundam ciberum debeat, semel-in totum macellum ab Apostolo admissa, detestatore 
eorum, qui sicut nubere prohibeant, ita jubeant cibis abstinere a Deo conditis: et ideo nos 
(the Montanists) esse jam tunc praenotatos in novissimis temporibus abscedentes a fide, 
intendentes spiritibus mundi seductoribus, doctrinis mendaciloquorum mustam habentes 
conscientiam (1 Tim. iv. 1, 2).. Sit et cum Galatis nos quoque percuti ajunt observatores 
dierum et mensium et annorum (Gal. iv. 10, ef. c. 14: Galaticamur plane). Jaculantw 
interea et Esaiam pronunciasse: non tale jejunium Dominus elegit, id est, non abstinen- 
tiam cibi, sed opera justitiae, quae subtexit (Is. lviii. 5, 6). Et ipsum Dominum in 


'Evangelio ad omnem circa victum scrupulositatem compendio respondisse, non his coin- 


quinari hominem, quae in os inferantur, sed quae ex ore proferantur, cum et ipse mandu- 
caret et biberet usque in nationem: Ecce homo vorator et potator (Matth. xi. 19). Sic et 
Apostolum docere, quod esca nos Deo non commendet: neque abundantes, si edamus, 
neque deficientes, si non edamus (1 Cor. viii. 8).. Comp. Neander’s Antignosticus, S. 279, ff. 

2 Origenes Hom. x. in Levitic. § 2: Habemus enim quadragesimae dies jejuniis con- 
secratos. Habemus quartam et sextam septimanae dies, quibus solemniter jejunamus. 
Is this translation of Rufinus correct? Cf. Dionys. Epist. can. ad Basilid. can. 1: Mydé 
tac & tév vynotedv hyépac icwc, und? duotwe wdvtTeg Svapévovewv’ GAW oi pév Kai 
Kaoac imeptiéaowy (i. e., fasting all days successively. Respecting these érepOécerc, 
superpositiones see Bingham, vol. ix. p. 229. Routh Reliqu. Sacr. ii. p. 419), dovroe 
diareAodvrec, ol d2 dbo, of 6& Tpeic, of dé Técoapac, of d& obdeuiav.—ei J2 Tivec 0tx 
mae oby bmepribéuevor, GAAa nde vyotetoayTes 9 Kai TpvgjaavTec "ras mpoayovoag 
réscapac, eita eAGovrec ént ta¢ Tedevratac Oto Kai udvac juépac, abrac¢ brepriBévrec, 


“Thy Te Tapackevay Kai TO odBBaTor, wéya TL Kat Aaurpoy Toteiv vouifovoly, dv uéxpt 


Tic €@ dtaysivwciy,; TodTov¢g ebk oivar THY tony GOAnoww rerotqjacbat Toi¢ Tac TAeiovag 
qutpac mponoxexdot. Const. Apost. v. 18: ’Ev raic juépaic obv tod Idoya vyoretere 
Gpxopevor xd devtépac méypl Tie TapacKkernc Kal caBBarov &F Huspac, Kk. T. A. 2 

® Tertull. de Jejun. c. 13, comp. § 53, note 33. The bishops sometimes showed them- 
selyes ambitious even here. Origenes in Matth. Commentariorum series, § 10: Qui 
docent etiam abstinere a cibis, et alia hujusmodi, ad quae non omnino oportet cogere 
homines fideles, alligant per verbum expositionis suae onera gravia, citra voluntatem 
Christi dicentis : Jagum meum suave est, et onus meum leve est: et imponunt ea, quan- 
tam ad verbum suum, super humeros hominum, curvantes eos et’ cadere facientes sub 
pondere gravium mandatorum eos, qui bajulare ea non sufferunt. Et frequenter videre 
est, eos qui talia docent, contraria agere sermonibus suis, etc 

* Even it would seem, of forty days, in imitation of Jesus. Petal Alex. can. 1. 


260 -- FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. Ill—A.D. 193-324. 


was progressively and increasingly valued ;*° and there were 
very many ascetics of both sexes, although they were bound by 
no irrevocable vow. The Alexandrian distinction of a higher 
and lower virtue had a special influenee in recommending this 
asceticism.’ It is true that the renouncing of sensual enjoy- 
ments (éyxpareia), according to Clement of Alexandria, was 
only the means for attaining to that higher virtue, 7. ¢., to that 
passionless state (d7dé0ea) whereby man is~made like to God 
and united to Him;* so that whoever has reached this point 
has no more need of that renunciation of sensual gratification ;° 
but afterward, the opinion that the higher virtue must mani- 
fest itself especially in external asceticism’® obtained currency, 
after the example of Origen, in the Christian school at Alex- | 
andria, as well as among the hew Platonists.' ‘To the high 


5 Cf. Cyprianus de Habitu virginum; Methodii convivium decem virginum (in Combefisii 
Auctarium novissimum biblioth. Graecorum Patrum. P. i. p. 64, ss.), and the two suppo- 
sititious letters to virgins that pass under the name of Clement of Rome, which probably 

appeared about this time, and were first communicated to the public in the Syriac 
language by Wetstein N. T. tom. ii. (Moehler, Patrologie, i. 67, declares them genuine.) 

6 Cypriani Epist. 62: Quod si (virgines) ex fide se Christo dicaverant, pudicae et 
castae sine ulla fabula perseverent, et ita fortes et stabiles praemium virginitatis exspec- 
tant.. Si autem perseverare nolunt, vel non possunt melius est ut nubant, quam in ignem 
delictis suis cadant. Certe nullam fratribus aut sororibus scandalum faciant, etc. Concil. 
Tlliberit. can. 13, is directed against the lustful excesses of the virgins, quae se Deo 
dicaverint, and consequently does not belong to our present purpose. On the other hand, 
Conc. Ancyran. can. 19: “Ooo. wapbeviay éxayyeAAbuevol, UBeTovor THY éayyediav, TOV 
tov dtyduwv Spov éxxAnpottwoay. Bigamists according to Basilii. Ep. can. iv. were 
subjected to the penance of a year. 7 See above, § 63, note 25. 

8 See § 63, note 27. Daehne de yvdcer Clementis, p. 107. 

* Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. p. 626 of the yyworikéc: Obx éyxpatie obroc Eri, GAA’ év Efes 
yéyovev arabeiac. vii. p. 874: Aso kai éo@ier kai wivet Kai yapei (6 yoworiKéc), ob zpon- 
youpévoc GAAd dvaykaiwc. Td yapueiv dé, dv 6 A6yoc Epy, Aéyu; kai Oc KaOjKEL. Teviuevoc 
yap Téhetoc (maritus) eixévac Eyer Tove ’ATooTéAove, Kal TH SvTL dvAp ob« év TS wovnpyn 
éxavedécbat deixvutat Biov, GAD’ éxeivoc Gvdpac vixG, 6 yauy Kai natdorotia, Kal TH TOD 
oixov mpovoia dvndévuc Te Kai GAuTATwC éyyvuvaciuevos, ueTa THE TOU olxov Kndeuoviacg 
adtdotatoc THE TOU Beod yevéuevoc dydtye, Kai Taone KaretavioTdpevor Teipac, THe Oa 
Tékvov Kal yuvatkoc, olkeTOv Te Kui KTHUGTWV mpoodeponévnc. TG dé doikw Ta TOAAa 
elvat ovuBéBnxev dneipdotw. Cf. lib. iii. p. 546, ete. De Wette Geschicht. d. christ]. 
Sittenlehre, i. 224. 40 Tzschirner’s Fall des Heidenthums, i. 435, ff. 

11 Origenes in Ep. ad. Rom. lib. iii. (ed. de la Rue, iv. p. 507: Donec quis hoc facit 
tantum: quod debet, i. e., ea quae praecepta sunt, inutilis servus est (according to Luc. 
xvii.10). Si autem addas aliquid praeceptis, tunc non jam inutilis servus eris, sed dicetur 
ad te: Euge serve bone et fidelis (Matth. xxv. 21). Quid autem sit quod addatur 
praeceptis, et supra debitum fiat, Paulus Apostolus dicit: De virginibus autem praeceptam 
Domini non habeo: consilium autem do, tamquam misericordiam consecutus a Domino 
(1 Cor. vii. 25). Hoc opus super praeceptumest. Qui ergo completis praeceptis addiderit 
etiam hoc, ut virginitatem eustodiat, non jam inutilis servus, sed servus bonus et fidelis 
vocabitur. Et iterum praeceptum est, ut hi qui Evangelium annunciant, de Evangelio 
vivant. Paulus tamen dicit, quia nullo horam usus sua; et ideo non inutilis erat servus, 


' 


CHAP. IV.—ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE.. § 73. ASCETICISM. 261. 


estimation of celibacy, increased by the cause just mentioned, 
which sometimes bordered almost upon contempt of the married 
state,” was attached very naturally the notion of its being es- 
pecially becoming in priests to renounce the marriage inter- 
course.!* And though no general ecclesiastical law was yet 
enacted on the subject,‘ yet as the priests had already been 
forbidden to marry a second time (} 53, note 28), a regulation 
was now made in addition, that they should only keep the wo- 
man whom they had married before ordination ; while in office 
itself, they should not marry ;° and that the person whom they 


sed fidelis et prudens. Euseb. Demonstrat. evang. i. c. 8: Of uabyrai (rod Xpictod)— - 
60a pév ate thy tv diaBeByxdor mpo¢g Tob TeAeiov didackddov naphyyeATo, TaiTa Toi¢ 
oiolc Te yapetv Tapedidovy’ boa 62 Tvi¢g Ett Tac Wuyac EuTabéor, Kai Oepareiag Seouévarc 
épapudlev tareAduBavov, Tadta ovyKkatiovtes TH TOY TAELévov dobeveig—ovAdrrew 
mapedidocav’ wore 70n Kal TH XploTod éexxAgaia Ovo Biwv vevoucbeTnabar TpémovE* TOY 
ev brepovun, Kai Tie KowwAe Kal GvOparivyc ToAtteiac éréxetva, ob ydpove, ob madorottac, 
obd2 Tho, ob68 neprovoiag brapéicy mapadeysuevov, bAov d2 dv? Gov Tij¢ KowFe Kai 
opry0ove anxdvtav dvOpdrav dywyne wapyAdAaypévoy, Kai uovyg TH TOD Geod Oepareia 
TpocwKetapévov Kal’ txepBodnv Epwroc oipaviov. Ol dy Tévde peTLévTEeg Tov TpdTOV, 
Tov Ovytaov Biov reOvavat Sokoivtec, Kai abTO-wbvov TO céua gépovtec ext yc, $povyAwate 
d2 tiv woxHr ele obpavov metevgveypévor, old TWec Oeol, Tov TG dvOpdTwv edopHor Biov, 
inép. ted mavtoc yévoug iepwuévor TO Ext TavTwv OeO, ob BovOvaiatc Kai aipaciy,— 
Séypact d2 dpGoi¢ dAnOoic eiceBeiac, puxis te Svabécer KexaBapuévyc, Kal mpocéti Toi¢ 
war’ dpetav Epyoig Te Kai Adyoltg. ol¢ TO Beiov etAcodpevor, THY brép odGv ait&v Kai 
rév ogiow duoyevGv axortedotow lepovpyiav. Tordcde wév odv xabéoryker 6 éevreane 
' Tig KkaTad Tov yYptoTiavicpov ToALtEiac Tpdxoc. ‘'O 0 broBEeBnKae dvOparivdrepoc, olog 
kal yapoig ovyKarlévar odgpoct Kai watdorotiacc, Kk. T. A—Kai tig tobroig debrepog 
evoeBeiac dreveunOn Babudc, kK. T. 2. 

12 Origenis in Num. Hom. vi. (ed. dela Bue, t. ii. p. 288): Ego, licet non usquequaque ~ 
pronunciem, puto tamen quod sint nonnulla etiam communium hominum gesta, quae 
quamvis peccato careant, non tamen digna videantur, quibis interesse putemus Spiritum 
sanctum. Ut verbi gratia dixerim, connubia quidem legitima carent quidem peccato, nec 
tamen tempore illo, quo conjugales actes geruntur, praesentia sancti Spiritus dabitur, 
etiamsi propheta esse videatur, qui officio generationis obsequitur: namely, Comm. in 
Matth. t. xvii. (t. iii. p. 827), gv wodvoud mag évTev kai dxabapoia Tivi THY YoupLévav 
agpodiaiote. 

13 Euseb. Demonstr. evang. i. ec. 9: Xpyvat yap, oyciv 6 Adyoc, tev éxioxoroy 
yeyovévat pide yuvaindc Gvdpa. nAjv aAAa Toi¢ lepwuévorc, Kai wept THY Tob Beow 
@epareiav doxodoupévolc avéyetv Aoitdv oda¢ abTod¢ mpooHKer THe yautkac busAiac. 

14 Tt was only the rigid council at Illiberis that ordained, Can. 33: Placuit in totum 
prohibere episcopis, presbyteris et diaconibus vel omnibus clericis positis in ministerio, 
abstinere se a conjugibus suis, et non generare filios: quicunque vero fecerit, ab honore © 
clericatus exterminetur. The meaning is ambiguous, but the true sense is probably this, 
that conjugal intercourse is forbidden bishops, presbyters, and deacons wholly (in totum), 
and to the inferior clergy as long as they are engaged in the active service of the church. 
These latter might live together with their wives, can. 65: Si cujus clerici uxor fuerit 
moechata, et—maritus—non eam statim projecerit, nec in finem accipiat communionem. 
Examples of married bishops and presbyters, belonging to this period, may be found in 
Calixtus de Conjugio clericorum, ed. Henke, p. 201. 

18 Const. Ap. vi. 17, Canon Ancyr. x.: Acdéxovol, boot Kabicravtat, nap’ abtiy THv 
«atdoruow el kuapripavto Kal tpacav ypivac yapijoat, ui Svvdyevor obtw¢ pévetv- 


262 FIRST PERIOD.—DIV. UL—A.D. 193-324. 


had married must have been a virgin. Among ascetics, the 
dangerous practice arose of taking to themselves virgins for the 
purpose of living with them in pure spiritual communion, van- 
quishing all temptations. ‘They called them Aeioal sorores,"” 
Others gave them the appellations ovveicaxzor,* subintroductae, 
dyannrai, extraneae. Against this practice, which - prevailed 
principally among the unmarried clergy, Cyprian first declared 
himself, and after him several synods.’* 

Hitherto the ascetics had lived scattered among otter Chris- 
tians without external distinction; but the Decian persecution 
was the cause of some Egyptian Christians” fleeing into the 
desert, and there in solitariness giving themselves up to an as- 
ceticism in the highest degree extravagant (épquitas, povayot). 
This new asceticism began to make greater noise, when, dur- 

-ing Maximin’s persecution (311), the hermit Anthony! appear- 
ed in a wild procession at Alexandria. But a season of perse- 


ovTOL meta TadTa yauHoarTec, ~otwoay év tH innpecia, dia Td ExitparHvat abrode brd 
tod éxicxéxov. Totro dé et tiveg otwnqoavTec, Kal xatadetduevor év TH xetpotovia 
uévetv ottwe, weTa TadtTa HAGov éxi yapor, TeravoGat abtodc tHe dtaxoviac. Can. 
Neocaesar. 1: IIpeaSvrepoc éav yay, tHe TaSewe abTov hetariBeobat. 

,_ 16 According to Const. Ap. vi. 17, not étaipay, 7 olxétiv, } yjpav; h ExBeBAnuévyy, as 
well as Levit. xxi. 7,14. Ezek. xliv. 22. 

17 So previously among the Gnostics. Irenaeus, i. 1, § 12, says of some Valentinians: 
‘Qe weTa GdeAGGv rpoorolovpevor ovvotkety, polbvTog Tod ypdvou HAEYXOnoaY, EyKbpovor 
tic GdeAdae im6 Tod ddeAgod yevnGeionc. Perhaps also in the case of Marcion. See 
Hall. A. L. Z. April, 1823, 8. 850. Epiphanius, Haer. 47, c. 3, accuses the Encratites of 
the same thing. The first trace of it among the Catholics is in Hermae Pastor, lib. iii. sim 
ix. § 11, where the virgins say of Hermas: Nobiscum dormies ut frater, non ut maritus: 
frater enim noster es, et de caetero tecum habitare paratae sumus: valde enim caram te 
habemus, &c. Tertullian also, de Jejuniis, c. 17, appears to blame the catholics for the same 
reason: Apud te agape in cacabis fervet, fides in culinis calet, spes in ferculis jacet. Sed 
major his est agape, quia per hanc adolescentes tui cum sororibus dormiunt (an allusion to 
1 Cor. xiii. 13). From the time of Cyprian the thing occurs more frequently. See below, 
note 19. Those ascetics appealed to the example of Jesus, John, and the apostles (Lib. 
de Singularit. cleric. c. 20. Epiphan. Haer. 78, c. 11), and named the young women, after 
1 Cor. ix. 5, Sorores (Conc. Ancyr. c. 19, Cod. Theodos. xvi. 2,44). Comp. Observationum 
selectarum, tom. vi. (Halae. 1702) p. 230, ss. Dodwell Diss. Cyprian. iii, L.A. Muratori 
Anecdota graeca, p. 218,ss. Heinichen ad Euseb. H. E. excurs. xiii. t. iii. p. 418, ss. 

_18 Euseb, vii. 30, 6: Tae ovvetcaxtove yuvaixac, Oc ’AvTioyetc dvoudfovc.. Perhaps 
the zepraxtol, 1 Cor. ix. 5, gave rise to that appellation proceeding from Antiochian wit. 
_ Perhaps, too, it originated from John xix. 27; f2a8ev airy sig Ta idia i. e., ovverohyayev. 

19 Cyprian. Epist. 5, 6, especially 62. Can. Illib. 27, Ancyr. 19, Nicaen. 3. The two 
Syriac letters falsely attributed to Clement also censure this abuse (note 5). The later 
work, de Singularitate’ clericoruam, in Opp. Cypriani, is directed entirely against the 

practice. 

_ 2° Comp. Dionys. Alex. ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 42. 

21 He lived on a rock in the mountain desert at the Red Sea, a day’s journey from it. 
. See vita S. Hilarionis by Jerome, Et. Quatremére Mémoires géographiques et historiques. 
sur Egypte. (Paris, 2 tomes, 1811) i. 152. 


CHAP. IV—ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. § 74. MORALITY. 263 


eution, which so readily engenders fanaticism, in addition to 
enthusiasm, was peculiarly adapted to procure approbation even 
for such oddities. Hence, Antony found imitators; and, since 
the following time favored such undertakings, in another point 
of view, he was in the sequel regarded as the father of Mo- 
nachism.? — 


§ 74, 
MORAL CHARACTER OF CHRISTIANITY IN THIS PERIOD. 


Though Christian freedom at this time had been fettered only 
by a few ecclesiastical laws, and the teachers, for the most 
part, were still able rightly to distinguish the essence of Christ- 
ian virtue from its forms, yet it can not but be perceived, that 
germs were already developed in the church, from which its 
moral corruption afterward arose. The notion of the church’s 
external unity, with its consequences, led men to set too high 
a value on orthodoxy of the letter,! and on external connection 
with the church. Heretics were universally hated as me® 
wholly corrupt and lost.? On the contrary, even an Origen was 
of opinion that, in the communion and at the intercession -of 
the church, even gross sinners might be accepted of God.* To 


_ 22 Sozomenus H. E. i. 12,13. Vita Antonii by Athanasius (either spurious or greatly 
interpolated, see Oudini Comm. de scriptor. eccles. ant. vol. i. p. 358). 

1 Origenes in Matth. Commentar. series § 33: Et malum quidem est, invenire aliquem 
secundum mores vitae errantem, multo autem pejus arbitror esse in dogmatibus aberrare 
et non secundum verissimam regulam scripturarum sentire. Quoniam sicut in peccatis 
mortalibus, puniendi sumus amplius propter dogmata falsa peccantes. 

2 Orig. Selecta in Job. ed. de la Rue, p. 501: Kai 6 aiperixdg érav ebfntar—érav doxz 
KateornpixOat, TéTe cic TéAOG droAEiTal’ h yap ebyH adbtod Aoyiferat abt ei¢ duapriar. 
Cyprian. de Unit. eccles.: Tales etiamsi occisi in confessione nominis fuerint, macula ,ista » 
nec sanguine abluitur, Esse martyr non potest, qui in ecclesia non est. Comp. the vota 
at the council of Carthage in the year 256 (in Cypriani Opp. ed Baluz. p. 334, ss.): Lucius 
‘a Thebeste: Haereticos blasphemos atque iniquos—execrandos censeo. Vincentius a . 
Thibari: Haereticos scimus esse pejores quam ethnicos. Lucianus a Rucuma: Si potest 
luci.et tenebris convenire, potest nobis et haereticis aliquid esse commune. Heretics are 
called, Const. Apost. vi. 13: Yevddéypioror kai wevdorpog7rat, kal pevdarbcroAol, TAGVOL 
Kal $Gopeic, dAwréxur pepides Kal yapaljhov dunedévav dgaviorai. C.18: Oi dragGel- - 
povtes TH Toluviov, Kai wodivovTes THY KAnpovouiay, of dosécogot Kai wauTévypot. 
Hence it was thought that heretics must have only the worst motives, and be guilty of the 
worst deeds. This was the source of so many distorted descriptions and fabrications 

' respecting them. 
* Origenes i in libr. Jesu Nave, Hom. x. 1, on the narrative of the Gibeonites, Jos. 9 


ie 


264 FIRST PERIOD. —DIV. UL —A.D. As8-30 


this was sided the error of estimating many virtues as well as er- 
rors too much. according to external circumstances, since the tempt- 
ation was easy to confound the ecclesiastical estimate of them,* 
which could only proceed upon the external form of the transac- 
tions, with the moral standard. The distinction between a 
higher and lower virtue did not, indeed, develop for a long time 
all the germs of corruption which it bore within itself ; yet it 
must even already have perplexed the ideas of siaralitg: since 
men began to place the higher virtue chiefly in certain external 
asceticism.° As too great value was attributed to this external 
asceticism, so also the steadfast endurance of persecution for the 
sake of Christianity was overvalued. Although it is certain 
that many had worked themselves up to undergo martyrdom, 
from motives not wholly pure,’ and although the confessors also 
were not always morally good men,*® yet it was a general opinion 
that by the external fact of suffering, they not only blotted out 


Isti ergo veniunt ad Jesum cum omnibus vetustatibus suis, et orant ab eo hoc tantum ut 
salventur. In quorum figura tale mihi aliquid videtur ostendi. Sunt quidam in Ecclesia 
credentes quidem et habentes fidem in Deum, et acquiescentes in omnibus divinis prae- 
ceptis: quique etiam erga servos Dei religiosi sunt, et servire iis cupiunt, sed et ad 
ornatum ‘Ecclesiae, vel ministerium satis promti paratique sunt, in actibus vero suis et 

mversatione propria obscoenitatibus et vitiis involuti, nec omnino deponentes veterem 
Cratnint cum actibus suis—praeter hoc, quod in Deum credunt, et erga servos Dei, vel 
Ecclesiae cultam videntur esse devoti, nihil adhibent emendationis vel innovationis in 
moribus. Istis ergo Jesus Dominus noster salutem quidem concedit, sed quodammodo 
salus ipsa eorum notam non evadit infamiae. Cf.c.3. In Matthaeum commentariorum 
series, c. 120 (ad Matth. xxvii. 15): Illud quaeramus, si tale aliquid fiat et in judicio Dei, 
utomnis Ecclesiae petere possit aliquem peccatorem, ut solvatur a condemnatione peccati, 
maxime autem si quando habeat perditionis caetera opera, ad benefaciendum autem 
Ecclesiae impiger sit. Tales enim invenies saepe in potentibus constitutos, alias. quidem 
peccatores, tamen pro Christianis, quantum possibile iis est, multa agentes. Hoc si 
videtur alicui dignum requisitione, requiret. Quod autem manifestum est, omnes curare 
tentemus, ut ex petentibus inveniamur esse, et in ordine eorum, qui bene vixerunt, magis 
quam ex illis, pro quibus petitur, quasi pro hominibus malis: Nam etsi concedatur aliquis 
peccatorum ad preces Ecclesiae, non tamen justum est gloriam et beatitudinem consequi 
eum, qui hujusmodi est: sufficit enim quod a poena dimittitur. 

ra Comp. especially the Canones Iliberitani, de Wette’s Geschichte der christl. Sitten- 
lehre. Erste Halfte, S. 176, ff. 

5 See § 73, note 11. 

6 De Wette, l.c. S. 184, ff. 

_ 17 Clem. Strom. vii. p. 871: Ol pév yap g:Aodosia (Eupévovory bnodoyia), oi 68 cbAaBeia 
Koddcewe GAAne Opysvtépac, of O62 did Tivag HOova¢ Kai edbdpocbvac Tac wETa Oavatoy 
bropuévovrec, Taidec év Tiotet. Comp. above, § 72, note 26.- 

8 Cyprian de Unit. eccl.: Caeteram numquam in confessoribus fraudes et stupra et 
adulteria postmodum viderimus, quae nunc in quibusdam videntes ingemiscimus et dolemus. 
Epist. 7, ad Rogatianum presb. et caeteros confessores : Cum quanto enim nominis vestri 
pudore delinquitur, quando aliquis temulentus et lasciviens demoratur, alius in eam 
patriam; unde extorris factus esf, regreditur, ut apprehensus non jam quasi peed 
sed quasi nocens pereat. . Cf. ea 6, ad Clerum suum. 


CHAP. IV.—ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. §74. MORALITY. 265 


their own sins before God, but were likewise able to atone for . 
the sins of others. Hence, the fanatical self-devotion to mar- 
tyrdom (profiteri) always found admirers,’ although it was dis- 
approved by most.’* On the other hand, in times of peace, 
many attached themselves to the church,” allured in part by 
external advantages, who were internally at a distance from it,” 
both regarding their relation to it as a thing simply external, 
and showing themselves lukewarm and indifferent." 

While we ean not overlook these moral defects, we still find 


9 See above, § 70, note 15, ff. 

10 Comp. above, § 53, note 48. Euseb. de Martyr. Palaest. c. 3. eccl. vii. c. 12. 

11 Comp. § 53, note 49. Cyprian. Ep. 83. Petri Alex. Epist. canon. c.9. Mensurius, 
bishop of Carthage, see § 72, note 26. Can. Illiberitan. c. 60: Si quis idola fregerit, et ibi- 
dem fuerit occisus, quatenus im evangelio scriptum non est, neque invenitur ab Apostolis 
unguam factum placuit in numero eum non recipi martyrum. 

12 Origines c. Cels. i. p. 53: Td dvoua Tod "Inocod—turotet Oavuaciay tivd mpadryra, 
kai KataoToAny tov 7Oove, kal dtAavOpwriar, Kai ypnotétyta, Kai nuepétnta év Toi¢ 
uy oui Ta BtwtiKa | Tivag xpetag dvOpwrtKkde brokpivapuévolc, GAAA Tapadefapévorc 
yvnciwg Tov wept Oeod Kai Xpiorov Kai ti¢ éoopévyng Kpicewe Adyov. ; 

18 On the time before the Decian persecution Cyprianns de Lapsis writes: Dominus 
probari familiam suam yoluit, et quia traditam nobis divinitus disciplinam pax longa cor- 
ruperat, jacentem fidem et paene dixerim dormientem censura coelestis erexit.—Stude- 

bant augendo patrimonio singuli, et—insatiabili cupiditatis ardore ampliandis facultatibus 
 incubabant. Non in sacerdotibus religio devota, non in ministris fides integra, non in 
operibus misericordia, non in moribus disciplina—Jungere cum infidelibus vinculum matri- 
monii, prostituere gentilibus membra Christi: non jurare tantum temere, sed adhuc etiam 
pejerare, caet. Origenes in Jerem. Hom. iv.3: Kai dAnOd¢ éav xpivopev Ta mpdypara 
GAnbeia, nai un dxA01c,—dpoueba viv, wc obk gouédy mioToi* GAAA TéTeE Foav TOTOl, 
6te Ta waptipia TH yeved éyivovTo, kK. T.A.—Téte Foav mioTot ddiyot piv, meotot 62 
GAnbic.—Niv 62, bre -yeyovauev woAdoi,—éx Tod TARGovE Tv éExayyeAAouévav Deoé- 
Becav odddpa eiciv dhiyot, of KatavtGvtec énxi THY exdoyHv Tod Beod Kal THY paKa- 
plérnta. On the peaceful times before the Diocletian persecution, Eusebii H. E. viii. 1: 
"AhAac én’ GAdate mpoceriOéuev Kaxiac. 

14 Origenes in Gen. Hom. x. 1: Ubi vel quando vestrum tempus inveniam (ad distribu- - 
endam in tempore tritici mensuram Luc. xii. 42) ? Plurimum ex hoc, imo paene totum 
tempus mundanis occupationibus teritis in foro, aliud in negotiatione consumitis : alius agro, 
alius litibus vacat, et ad audiendum Dei verbum nemo, aut pauci admodum vacant. Sed 
‘quid vos de occupationibus culpo? Quid de absentibus conqueror? Praesentes etiam-et 
. in Ecclesia positi non estis intenti, sed communes ex usu fabulas teritis, verbo Dei vel 
lectionibus divinis terga convertitis—Sine intermissione orandum Apostolus praecipit. 
- Vos, qui ad orationes non convenitis, qaomodo impletis sine intermissione, quod semper 
omittitis ?—quid faciunt hi, qui diebus tantum solemnibus ad Ecclesiam conveniunt? In 
Num. Hom, xii. 2: Aliqui vestrum ut recitari audierint, quae leguntur, statim discedunt.— 
Alii ne hoc ipsum quidem patienter expectant, usque quo lectiones in Ecclesia recitentar. - 
Alii vero nec si recitantur, sciunt, sed in remotioribus dominicae domus locis saecularibus 
fabulis occupantur. Hom. xiii-3: Quanti modo hic praesentes sumus, et sermo ‘Dei trac- 
tatur? Sunt, qui concipiunt corde, quae lecta sunt, sunt, qui omnino non concipiunt, quae, ~ 
dicuntur, sed est mens eorum et cor aut in negotiis, aut in actibus saeculi, aut suppota- 
tionibus lucri: et praecipue mulieres quomodo, putas, corde concipiunt, quae tantam-gar- 
riunt, quae tantum fabulis obstrepunt, ut non sinant esse silentium? Jam quid de mente 
earum, quid de corde pidiecotian. si de infantibus suis, aut de lana cogitent, aut de neces- 
sariis domus ? 


266 FIRST PERIOD.—DI¥. IIL.—A.D. 193-324. 


in the church a living Christianity prevailing, and in conse- 
quence thereof, fine morai phenomena which are sought for in 
vain out of its pale at this period.’ In particular, that philan- 
thropy which Christianity awakened in its proféssors,'® deserves 
so much the more honorable mention,’ as it was not confined 


15 Origines c. Celsum, i. p. 21: Ei 0’ 6 ebyvwpivag taita Katavoéyv ovyKatabjoerat 
7H, undev Kpeitrov év GvOperoie yeyovévar Geel: ré0w TAgOv Td TOCOdDTOY TeEpi TOD 
Inoot Oappav drogaveitar, ovveferafuv moAAGv xpocepyouévwv aitod TH Adyw 
apyatotépove Biove psTayeveotépore, Kal KatavoGy, év boaic péev akodaciatc, doatc 
62 adixiare Kai wAsovekiarg Exactoc THvde HY, Tpiv, Se donot KéAcoc,—drarnOGo. ‘— 
&& ob d& mapelAndace Tov Adyov, tiva Tpdmov yeyévacw émletkéatepot Kai evotabéa- 
tepo.; P.50: Ol kar#yopor Tod Xpiotiavicwod oby dpdotv, bowv méOn, Kai dour 
Xoo. Kakiag KataoréAAeta, Kat dowy Gypia 7On juepodtat mpogdcer Tod Aédyov. 
‘Arnobius adv. Gentes, ii. 4: Nonne vel haec saltem fidem vobis faciunt argumenta cre- 
dendi, quod jam_per omnes terras in tam brevi temporis spatio immensi nominis hujus © 
sacramenta diffusa sunt? quod nulla jam natio est tam barbari moris, et mansuetudinem 
nesciens, quae non ejus amore versa molliverit asperitatem suam, et in placidos sensus 
assumpta tranquillitate migraverit ? 

16 Thus the Roman church, in the middle of the third century, had (Cornelius Ep. 
Rom. ap. Euseb. vi. 43, 5,) y#pac atv OAsBouévorg brép Tac yLAiag TEvTaKooiac, ovd¢ 
Tavtac 7 Tov deorérov yapic kai diAavOpwria dtatpéget, and sent help besides even 
to the churches in Syria, Arabia (see Dionys. Alex. b. Euseb. vii. 5, 1), and Cappadocia 
(Basil. M. Ep. 70). Comp. above, § 53, note 9. Cyprian in exile, Ep. 36, ad Clerum: 
Viduarum infirmorum et omnium pauperum curam peto diligenter habeatis. Sed et pere- 
grinis, si qui indigentes fuerint, sumptus suggeratis de quantitate mea propria, quam 
apud Rogatianum compresbyterum nostrum dimisi. Quae quantitas ne forte jam uni- 
versa erogata sit, misi eidem—aliam portionem, ut largius et promptius circa laborantes 
fiat operatio. Epist. 60. He sends to the Numidian bishops to ransom the captive breth- 
ren from the barbarians, sestertia centum millia nummorum, which he had collected in 
his church. Et optamus quidem nibil tale de caetero fieri :—si tamen—tale aliquid acci- 
derit, nolite cunctari nuntiare haec nobis literis vestris, pro certo habentes,- ecclesiam 
nostram et fraternitatem istic universam ne haec ultra fiant precibus orare, si facta fue- 
rint, libenter et largiter’subsidia praestare. Epist. 61, ad Euchratium, bishop of Thenis, 
in reference to a converted actor who had been obliged to give up his employment: 
Quod si illic ecclesia non sufficit ut laborantibus praestet alimenta, poterit se ad nos trans- 
ferre, et hic quod sibi ad victum atque ad vestitum necessarium fuerit accipere. 

1” Comp. Vita 8. Cypriani per Pontium Diac. c. 9, on the conduct of Cyprian and his 
church on occasion of a desolating plague: Aggregatam primo in loco uno plebem de 
misericordiae bonis instituit, docens divinae lectionis exemplis, quantum ad promerendum 
Deum prosint olficia pietatis. Tunc deinde subjungit, non esse mirabile, si nostros tantum 
debito caritatis obsequio foveremus: eum perfectum.posse fieri, qui plus aliquid publicano 
vel ethnico fecerit: qui malum bono vincens, et divinae clementiae instar exercens, inim- 
icos quoque dilexerit : qui pro persequentium se salute, sicuti, Dominus monet et horatur, 
orarit. .Oriri Deus facit jugiter solem suum, et pluvias subinde nutriendis seminibus im- 
pertit, exhibens cuncta ista non suis tantum, sed etiam alienis: et qui se Dei etiam filium 
esse profitetur, cur non exemplum patris imitatur?) Respondere, inquit, nos decet natali- 
bus nostris, et quos renatos per Deum constat, degeneres esse non congruit; sed probare 
potius in sobole traducem boni patris aemulatione bonitatis. Cap. 10: Multa alia, et qui- 
dem magna praetereo— Quod si illa gentiles pro rostris audire potuissent, forsitan statim 
crederent. Quid christiana plebs faceret, cui de fide nomen est? Distributa sunt ergo 
continuo pro qualitate hominum atque ordinum ministeria. Multi qui angustia pauperta- 
tis beneficia sumtus exhibere non poterant, plus sumtibus exhibebant, compensantes pro- 
prio labore mercedem divitiis omnibus cariorem.—Fiebat itaque exuberantium operum 


CHAP. IV.—ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. § 74. MORALITY. 267 


merely to the Christian brethren, but manifested itself in noble 
traits toward the heathen. 


largitate, quod bonum est ad omnes, non ad solos domesticos fidei, etc. Dionysius Alex. 
ap. Euseb. vii. c. 22, gives a similar account of the conduct of the Alexandrian Christians 
at the time of a pestilence. Among other things, of yoiv wAciotos Tév AdeAdGv hudyv dv 
brepBdarovoav aydrnyv Kai dAadeAgiav dgedoivres ~avtGv Kai GAAfAwY éyduevoL, 
éxioxorotytec AdvAdKTWC TO’l vocOdVTAaC; AETapGe HrnpeTobuevos, OepametovTee év 
XpiotG, ovvarndAdrrovto. éxeivotg douevéctata tod wap’ érépwv dvariprAduevor 
xdbouc, Kai THY vécov é@’ Eavtoi¢ EAKovTEe¢ Gxd TOV TAnoiwv, Kai éxdvTeo dvauac- 
couavo Tac dAyndévac.—Ta dé ye &0vn nav tobvaytiov: Kai voceiv dpyouévoug dru- 
Ooivro, kai dnégevyov Tove giAtdtouc, Kav Taig ddoig éppixrovy jucOvirag: Kai vexpod~e 
drdgoug dreckvBapifovto, tiv Tob Gavdrov diadocwv Kal Kotvaviay éxtperdpuevat. 


268 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 324-451. 


SECOND PERIOD, 


FROM CONSTANTINE TO THE BEGINNING OF THE CONTROVERSIES 
CONCEENING IMAGE WORSHIP. A.D. 324-726. 


For the general history of the middle ages: Ed. Gibbon History of the Decline and Fall 
_of the Roman Empire. London. 1776-88. 4to. Translated into German with remarks, 
by F. A. W. Wenk, K. G. Schreiber, and Ch. D. Beck. Leipz. 1788-1807. 19 Theile 
8vo.—F. Ch: Schlosser’s Weltgeschichte in zuasammenhangender Erzahlung. Frankf. 
a. M. 1815, ff. 8. from the second volume onward. Fr. Rehm’s Handbuch. d. Geschichte 
des Mittelalters, 4 Bde. Marburg. 1821-39. 8. H. Leo’s Lehrbuch der. Gesch. des 
Mittelalters, 2 Theile. Halle. 1830. 8. 





FIRST DIVISION. 


TO THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON. A.D. 324-451. 


SOURCES. _ 


1. Greek ecclesiastical historians: The continuators of Euse- 
bius: Socrates Scholasticus, of Constantinople, Hist. Eccl. 
libb. vii. from 306-439. Hermias. Sozomenus, lawyer in 
Constantinople, Hist. Eccl. libb. ix. 323-423. (Both edited 
by H. Valesius. Paris. 1668. Mogunt. 1677. Amst. 
1700. fol.) Theodoretus, bishop of Cyprus, Hist. Eccl. libb. 
v. 322-429 (in Theodoreti Opp. ed. Jac. Sirmondus. Paris. 
1642, ss. fol. tom. 3, p. 2—in edit. Schulzii cura J. A. 
Noesselt, t. 8, p. 719, ss. Halae. 1771. 8).1. The Arian 
Philostorgius, Hist. Eccl. libb. xii. 318-425 (preserved only 

' in the extracts of Photius Cod. 40. ed. Jac. Gothofredus. 
Genev. 1643. 4.) 

Farther continuators: Theodorus Lector in Constantinople 
made extracts from Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, in 
two books, and continued the history in two books more till 
a.D. 518. (Fragments of the continuation have been pre- 


1 F. A. Holzhausen comm. de fontibus, quibus Socrates, Sozomenus, ac Theodoretus in 
scribenda historia sacra usi sunt, adjuncta eorum epicrisi. Gotting. 1825. 4. 


ee a er, 


SOURCES. 269 


served chiefly in Nicephorus. Callistus, who, about 1330, 
compiled a chureh history in twenty-three books down to 911, 
of which history the first eighteen books, reaching to 610, 
are extant. Ed. Fronto Ducaeus. Paris. 1630. 2 voll. fol. 
Old and new fragments in J. A. Cramer anecdota Graeca, e 
Codd. Paris. .Oxon. 1839. ii. 101.) Evagrius Scholasticus 
in Antioch, Hist. Eccl. libb. vi. from 481-—594.? Editions. 
Theodoreti et Evagrii Schol. Hist. Eccl. item excerpta ex 
historiis Philostorgii et Theodori Lectoris, ed. H. Valesius. 
Paris. 1673. Mogunt. 1679. Amst. 1695. fol. Euse- 
bii Pamphili, Socratis Schol., Herm. Sozomeni, Theodoreti 
et Evagrii, item Philostorgii et Theodori Lectoris, quae - 
exstant graece et latine. H. Valesius emendavit, latine 
vertit, et annotationibus illustravit: criticis. plurium eru- | 
ditorum observationibus locupletavit Guil. Reading. Can- 
tabrig. 1720. 3 +. fol. (a faulty reprint, August. Taurin 
1747.) — 

Chronicon Paschale (falsely called Alexandrinum) from the cre- 
ation of the world to 628, ed. Car. du Fresne, Dom. du 
Cange. Paris, 1688. fol. ad exemplar Vatic. ree. L. Dindor- 
fius, voll. ii. Bonnae. 1832. 8.° 

2. Latin ecclesiastical historians: Severus Sulpicius, presbyter 
‘in the diocese of Agen, Histor. Sacra, libb. ii. a mundo cond. 
—400. p. C. (opp. ed. Jo. Clericus. Lips, 1709. 8. Hieron. 
de Prato, Veron. 1741, 44. 2 voll. 4). Rufinus, presbyter 
in Aquileia, translated Bubebins: in nine books, and continued | 
the history in two books, to 395 (Socrates H. E. ii. 1, pro- 

-nounces a judgment on the continuation), ed. P. Th. Cac- 
ciari. Romae. 1740, 41. 4.—Historia tripartita, libb. xii. 

_compiled by Cassiodorus and Epiphanius Scholasticus, about 
550, from Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. ~This, and 
Rufinus’s church history were the historical sources for the 
middle ages ; published together by Beatus Rhenanus. Basil. 
1523, and frequently in the 16th century. 


2 G. Dangers Comm. de fontibus, indole et dignitate librorum, quos de hist. eccl. scrip- 
serunt Theodorus Lector et Evagrius. Gottingae. 1841. 4. 

* According to the opinion which originated with Luc. Holstenius (ed. Bonn. ii. 16), the 
proper Chron. Pasch. reaches only to 314, while the following part belongs to a later con- 
tintator. But even in that first part we find very many allusions to later persons and 
things, so that it must have suffered a thorough interpolation. For example, the festival 
of the annunciation is mentioned, i. 373; Chrysostom, and under this very name too, 437; 
Eutyches, 445; Cyrillus, 450, etc. 


270 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. 1—A.D. 324-451. 


Hieronymi de Viris Illustribus lib. (written 392) and the con- 
tinuation under the same title by Gennadius -(about 495),- 
both in J. A. Fabricii Bibliotheca Eecipsmstiog,: Hamb. 
1718. fol. 

8. Latin chronicles: Jerome translated the Chronicon of Euse- 
bius into Latin, and continued it to 379 (in Eusebii Chron 
ed. Jos. Scaliger. Ludg. Bat. 1606, and Amstelod. 1658. fol.). 
After him we have) in succession the chronicles of Prosper of 
Aquitania to 455 (444%), of the Spanish bishop Idatius, to 
469, and of Marcellinus Comes, to 534. The contents of 
these chronicles are arranged according to years, from 379 
till 455, and published in Chronica medii aevi post Eusebium 
atque Hieron. res saec. iv. v. et vi. exponentia, ed. Chr. F. 
Roesler. t..1. Tubingae. 1798. 8. 

4. Acts of councils in the Collect. Concill. The canons of the 
councils in H. Th. Bruns Biblioth. eccles. vol. i. (Canones 
Apostol. et Concill. saec. iv.—vii. in 2 Part.). Berolini. 1839. 
8. _G. D. Fuchs Library of the ecclesiastical councils of the 
fourth and fifth centuries. Leipz. 1780-84. 4 parts, 8vo. 
Synodicon vetus, a short account of the councils up to the 
year 869, prim. ed. Jo. Pappus. Argent. 1601. 4, also in 
G. Voelli et H. Justelli Bibl. juris canon. veteris, t. ii. p. 
1166, ss., and in Fabricii Bibl. graeca vol. xi. p. 185, ed. 
nov. vol. xii. p. 360, ss. belongs here from cap. 34—90. 

5. Imperial decrees: Codex Theodosianus (compiled in 438, 
‘partly lost) cum comm. Jac. Gothofredi, cur. Jo. Dan. Ritter. 
Lips. 1737, ss. 6 voll. fol. with the recently found books and 
fragments edited by G. Haenel. Bonnae. 1842. 4.—Codex 
Justinianeus compiled by Tribonianus in 529, codex repeti- 
tae praelectionis 534 (in the numerous belltiaos of the Corpus 
juris civilis). 

6. Heathen historians: Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gesta- 
rum libb. xxxi. only libb. 14-31 are extant (from the year 
353-378), ed. Jac. Gronov. Lugd. Bat. 1693. fol. J. A. Er- 
nesti. Lips. 1773. 8.—Zosimus, loropia véa libb. vi. (to 
410), ed. Chr. Cellarius. Cizae. 1679.8. J. F. Reitemeier. 
Lips. 1784. 8.* 


* There are different opinions concerning the historical value of Zosimus’s history. It 
is very favorably judged by Jo. Leunclavius (Apologia pro Zosimo in his Romanae hist. 
seriptt. minores. -Francof. 1590. fol., reprinted in the edition of Cellarius) and Reitemeier 


CHAP. I—STRUGGLE WITH PAGANISM. §75. CONSTANTINE. 271 


FIRST CHAPTER. 


STRUGGLE BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND PAGANISM. 


J. G. Hoffmann Ruina superstitionis paganae variis observatt. ex. historia eccl. saec. iv. 
et v. illustrata. Vitemb. 1738. 4. §. Th. Ridiger de Statu et conditione paganorum 
sub. Impp. christianis post Constantinum. Vratislav. 1815. 8. Histoire de la Destruc- 
tion du Paganisme en Occident par A. Beugnot. 2 Tomes. Paris. 1835. 8 (a Prize 
Essay). 


§ 75. 


THE FAVORS SHOWN TO CHRISTIANITY UNDER CONSTANTINE 
AND HIS SONS. 


Martini iiber die Enfihrung der christl. Religion als Staatsrelig. im rom. Reiche durch d. 
Kaiser Constantin. Minchen. 1813. 4. 8. 29, 


Although Constantine, after his victory over Licinius, gave 
full toleration to all religions,’ protected the heathen priests in 
their prerogatives,” reserved to himself the dignity of a pontifex 
maximus,’ and not till shortly before his death (+ 337) received 
the rite of baptism from Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia ;* yet 
he openly professed Christianity immediately after that victory,° 
seeking to make it more acceptable to his subjects by recom- 
mendation and persuasion,° and attractive toward the Christians 


+ *. 
(disquis. de Zosimo prefixed to his edition): quite unfavorable is the jadgment of the older 
church historians, and of Guil. de Sainte-Croix Observations sur Zosime in his Mémoires 
de l’Acad. des Inscriptions, t. 49 (1808), p. 466, ss. 

1 Eusebius de vit. Const. ii. 56, 60. 

2 Cod. Theodos. xii. i. 21, A.D. 335, and xii. v. 2, A.D. 337. 
+3 See below, § 78, note 2. Constantine appears on many coins with the insignia of the 
pontifex maximus, see Mionnet de la rareté et du prix des medailles romaines (Paris. 
1827. 2 vol. 8.), ii. 236, 

4 Eusebius de vita Const. iv. c. 61, 62. 

5 When later heathen asserted (Juliani Caesares, at the conclusion, Zosimus, ii. 29, 
Sozomen, i. 5) that a conscience, troubled on account of the murder of his son Crispus, and 
his wife Fausta, impelled the emperor to Christianity, which was the only religion that 
promised full forgiveness of sin, even chronology is against the assertion. Comp. Manso’s 
Leben Constantins d.G. Breslau. 1817. 8. S. 119. Hug’s Denkschrift zur Ehrenrettung 
Constantins d. G. ind. Zeitschrift f. d. Geistlichkeit des Erzbisth. Freiburg. Heft 3, 8.75, ff 

§ See his rescripts to the oriental provinces in Euseb. de vita Const. ii. 24-42, 48-60. 
Respecting his speeches in recommendation of Christianity, cf. iv. 29, 32, 55. The one 
which he wrote, dy éypave TO TGV dyiwy ovAAd6yy, is appended to Eusebius’s life of him, 
In it he lays peculiar stress on the prophecies of the Sybil, and the fourth eclogue of Virgil, 
which he also refers to Christ. 


272 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D. 324-451. 


by favors ;’ engaging with zeal in the erection of many, and in 
part, splendid churches,’ and in furnishing them with revenues 
out of the common fund of the cities.° Since paganism contin- 
ued to prevail in Rome," he transferred the seat of his govern- 
ment to Byzantium, and changed this city into a chiefly Chris- 
tian New-Rome (afterward Constantinople)."' But yet the 


7 Euseb. de vita Const. iv. 28: Taig 0’ éxxAnoiate tod Ocod na imepoynv éaiperov 
tAcio? boa mapeiyev* Ode piv aypode, dAday60t dé otrodociac, ext yopnyia mevijTov 
dvopov, Taidwy 7 dpdavav, x. T. A. Comp. the emperor's direction to the bishops, how 
they should use the new means put into their hands for the conversion of the heathen, lL. ¢, 
lii.c. 21: Oi pév yap O¢ mpc Tpognv yaipovoty éxtkatpobuevor* of d& THe TpocTaciac 
brotpéxev elOPacw* Ado. Tob¢ deftaoeor drdodpovovpévove domalovrac* Kai Feviore 
TYyLduevor GyanGow Etepor Bpayeic 0 of Adywv GAnOeic Epactal, Kai ordviog ad 6 Tij¢ 
GAnbetag gihog. Aw xpo¢ névrac dpuorrecbat dei, larpod Oixny éxdoTw Ta AvolTEAq 
mpoc owrnpiay wopllouévovg’ Gar’ é& Gravtog tiv cwTnpLov Tapa Toi¢ maot dosalecbar 
O:dacka2iav. In this way he himself converted the pagan inhabitants of Heliopolis in 
Phoenicia, 1. c. iii. 58: povody—érw¢ dv rAciove mpogiotev TO Adyw, Ta Tpde ExtKovpiay 
TOV mevaTav éExnAea Tapetye, Kal Ta’TH TpoTpéTUM er THY CwTHLOY orebdELy didac- 
KaAicv* povovovxyl TO odvTe TaparAjotuc elnov dv kal aitécg’ “elite mpodaoe, eit’ 
dAnGeia Xprotog xatayyeAAéoOw (Phil. i. 18!).” Rewards bestowed on the places which 
declared in favor of Christianity, 1. c. iv. 38 and 39. 

8 See his letter to all bishops, Euseb. de vit. Const. ii. 46, in which he directs them, 
omovddsew mepi Ta Epya TOV ExkAnotov* Kal 7 éxavopHoicbat Ta SvTa, 7 el¢ peivova 
avbgeiv, 7 &vOa dv xpeia GraitH, Kawa Toreiv. AitiHoere Oé—Ta dvayKaia Tapd TE THY 
hyenovarv, kal tie émapyixie TaEewe* tTobtoLg yap émeoTGAOn, macy TpoOvpia éEurnpe- 
thoacbat Toic bd THE CHe boLtéTHTOC AEyouévoic. On the rescripts to the Praesides 
Proy. see ii. 45.—Churches which Constantine himself caused to be built: one at the holy 
sepulcher in Jerusalem (76 Mapripiov: 7 éxKAncia tig TO’ LwTHpo¢ dvacrdcewc, built 
from 326~335. Euseb. I. c. iii. 25-40; iv. 43-45. Comp. E. F. Wernsdorfi Hist. templi 
Constantiniani propter resurrectionis Christi locum exstructi, and de Templi Constantiniani 
etc. solemni dedicatione. Viteberg. 1740. 4.), on the Mount of Olives and in Bethlehem 
(béth built by Helena, 1. c. iii. 41-43), in Nicomedia and Antioch (iii. 50), in Mambre (iii. 
51), in Heliopolis (iii. 58), many churches in Constantinople (iii. 48), especially the church 
of the Apostles (iv. 58-60). Cf. Jo. Ciampinus de Sacris aedificiis a Const. M. exstructis. 
Bomae. 1693. fol. ais 

9 Sozomenus, i.c. 8: "Ex 08 tig obton¢e troddpov yao Kal éxdotnyv médw bEedov rod 
Onuoctov pytov TéAog, Taig KaTa TOmov ExKAnoiate Kai KAHpotC arévELpe, Kal THY OwpEdy 
ele Tov Gravra xpévov Kupiav eivar évouobéryoe. Vv. c. 5: "Ex Tay éExdoTyc TOAEWG d6pwr 
Ta dpkoovta (shortly before it is called 7a oxrypéora, ap. Theodoret. iv. 4: otvrasic citov) 
mpoc Tapackevyy éerityndeiov anévere Toi¢ TavTayov KAgjpotc. The unfortunate conse- 
guences of these measures and the exemption of the clergy, on the state of municipal 
affairs, are shewn by F. Roth de re municipali Romanorum, lib. ii. Stuttg. 1801, p. 32, 
ss. Hegewisch hist. Versuch tiber d. rom. Finanzen. Altona. 1804. 8. 324, ff. 

10 In the year 331 the temple of Concordia was restored by the senate. The erection, 
also, of several altars happened at this time. Comp. Beugnot Hist. de la destruction du 
Paganisme, i. 106. 

1- Enseb. de vita Const. iii. 48: Tyv m6Atv—Kabapederv eldwdoaatptac é ardone édtxaiov' 
Oc undanod gaivecbar év airy Tv vomilouévor Oedy ayddpara év iepoic Opnokevépeva, 
GAN odd? Baporc ALOpot¢ aiudrwy puavopévove, ob Ovoiag bAokavrovuévag rupi, ob 
Saimovixde éopra¢, odd’ Erepdv Tt TOV ovvqOwv Toi¢ Jecowdaiuoorv. Constantine besides 
beautified his new city with works of art, even with statues of the gods, which were 
every where pillaged and brought together here. The vaol dio, with the images of 


CHAP. I.—STRUGGLE WITH PAGANISM: § 75, CONSTANTINE: 273 


greater’ number of the principal families of the. kingdom re- 
mained pagan ‘still, and hence he was obliged to have many 
heathen about his person, and in the higher offices of state, — 
although he most readily advanced Christians to posts of honor. 
The more violent measures of Constantine against paganism 
were confined to his confiscating in the east many less frequent- 
ed temples, whose revenues he converted to the use of Christian 
churches, or the building of Constantinople, and his prohibiting 
the rites of worship connected with immoralities.° The law - 
by which he is said to have interdicted all sacrifices was not at 
least carried out into operation.’ After his death he was, ac- 
cording to. custom, placed by the senate among the gods.”’ 
After the death of Constantine II. (¢ 340) Constantius ruled 


Rhea and the Fortuna Romae, ap. Zosimus, ii. 31, were probably only niches. When 
Constantine caused his gilded statue to be set up at the dedication of the city, with the ~ 
Toyn tij¢- wOAewe on the right, which was to be honored at the yearly festival of the 
birthday of the existing emperor (Chron: paschale, p. 285): this merely proves that ‘as yet 
no suitable Christian symbolism had been formed for such solemnities (comp. Manso, |. c. 
§. 77). It is an analogous case when we find frequently on the coins of the first Christian 
emperors Victoria with the Labaram. The later tradition (ap. Zonaras, Cedrenus, etc.), 
that Constantine dedicated his city to the mother of God, is ridiculous. 

12 Euseb. |. c. ii. 44: Toi¢ xat’-éxapyxiac dinpnuévorg EOvecty hysuévag Katéreure, TH 
cutnpio miotes Kabwowwpévove Tobe mAeiovcg’ dco. 0 EAAnviley Edéxovy, TobToOLg Obey” 
areipnra (cf. iv. 52). 

13 Cf. Riidiger de statu et conditione Paganorum, p. 14, ss. 

1# Euseb. 1. c. iii. 54. Libanius in several passages (see below, note 16). Martini, S.. 
38. Ridiger, p. 21, ss. 

15- So the worship of Venus in Phoenicia, Euseb. lc. iii. 55, 58, iv. 37, 38, the scandeldus 
' worship of the Nile, iv. 25. So also he threw down the temple of Exeulopius in Cilicia, 
on account of the fraud carried on there, iii. 56. Martini, 8. 36, f. Riidiger, p. 23, ss. 

16 As Constantius (below; note 18) refers to such a law, so Eusebius, 1. c. ii. 45, speaks 
expressly of a véuo¢ elpywv Ta wvoapa tie—eldw@Aohatpiag, O¢ uATe tyépoeic Sodvev 
motetobat ToALay, ware warteiac Kal Taig GAAate meprepyiate émuyerpeiv, uATE uRV Oberv 
KaQdAov uydéva. In like manner, iv. 23, 25, and the following Christian writers, the later 

of whom, ex. gr. Theophanes, speak even of capital punishments which Constantine 
enacted "gainst heathenism., See Martini, p. 34. Annot. 67. On the other hand, it is 
' striking that this law is nowhere to be found, and that only expressions of his are extant 
_ which assure toleration to heathenism (see note 1), and that Libanius asserts of him, Orat. 
_ pro templis, § 3 (ed. Reiske, vol. ii. p. 161): Eig wév tiv rig woAewe, wept jv Eonovdace,. 
| ‘Roinow roic iepoig éxpjoato xpHuact, THe KaTa vopovc dé Oepareiac éxivncev obde Ev. 
According to Gothofredus (ad. Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 10, 1. 3) such a law was actually __ 
~ passed, but in the last years of the emperor. Martini, p. 40, is of opinion that Constantine - 
and Eusebius in those passages refer merely to the laws against immoral rites: Ridiger 
thinks that a general prohibition of sacrifice was issued by Constantine, but afterward - 
recalled... Perhaps it was published shortly before his death, and was not therefore 
carried into execution. 

17 Eutropii Breviarum, x. 4: Inter Divos meéruit referri. “There is still a calendar” 

. existing i in which the festivals instituted in honor of him are enumerated, See de la 
Bastie in the. Mémoires de l'Acad. des Inscr. xv. 106, Beugnot Hist. de la destruction: 
« du Paganisme, i i. 109. 


VOL. r—1 8 i 


274 - SECOND PERIOD—DIV. I.—A.D. 324-45.. ° 


the east, and Constans the west. Both dealared themselves 
decided opponents to paganism." Constans, however. could not 
proceed very strictly in opposition to it in the west, but had to 
act with some respect toward Rome in particular, still addicted 
as it was to the sanctuaries of the ancient religion. But 
under these emperors the Christians sometimes forgot the prin- 
_ ciples, of religious toleration on which they had so loudly insisted 
during former persecutions,”® and fanatical voices calling for the 
© violent extinction of paganism were raised among them.” 

When the whole empire devolved on Constantius after Con- 
_ stans’ death (7 350), all sacrifices were prohibited for the first 
time on pain of death. This law could not, however, be fully 


18. Cod. Theodos. lib. xvi. tit. 10, 1. 2 (A.D. 341): Cesset superstitio, sacrificiorum aboleatur 
insania. Nam quicunque contra legem divi principis parentis nostri, et hanc nostrae man- 
suetudinis jussionem ausus fuerit sacrificia celebrare, competens in eum vindicta et praesens 
sententia exseratur. 

12 Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, 3, ad Catullinum Praef. Urbi (4.D. 342): Quamquam omnis 
superstitio penitus eruenda sit, tamen volumus, ut aedes templorum, quae extra muros 
sunt positae, intactae incorruptaeque consistant. Nam cum ex nonnullis vel ludorum, vel 


. circensium, vel agonum origo fuerit exorta, non convenit ea convelli, ex quibus populo. 


Romano praebeatur priscarum solennitas voluptatum, About 347 an unknown traveler 
(Vetus Orbis descriptio, ed. J. Gothofredi. 1628, p. 35) found in Rome not only seven Vestal 
virgins, but the worship of Jupiter, Sol, and the Mater Deum still entire... Comp. Gotho- 
fredi, note p. 40, ss. Testimonies respecting the Pagan worship at this time may be 
derived from inscriptions in Beugnot Hist. de la destruction du Paganisme, i. 154. 

_ 9. For example Justin. Apol. maj.c. 2, 4,12. Tertull.adScapulam,c.2. So also as yet 
even under Constantine, Lactant. Institt..v. 19: Religio cogi non potest: verbis potius 


quam verberibus res agenda est, ut sit voluntas. Nihil est tam BRO 43 quam relizio. - 
C. 20: Nos non expetimus, ut Deum nostrum, qui est omnium, velint nolint, colat aliquis invi-- 


tus: nec, si non coluerit, irascimur. Epitome, c. 24: Religio sola est, in’ qua libertas 
domicilium collocavit. Res est enim praeter caeteras voluntaria, nec imponi cuiquam 
~ necessitas potest, ut colat quod non vult. Potest aliquis forsitan simulare, non potest velle. 

21 Julius Firmicus Maternus lib. de errore profanarum religionum, dedicated to the two 
emperors, between 340 and 350 (ed. F. Minter. Havn. 1826. 8. p. 118). Among other things 
itis said: Vobis, sacratissimi Imperatores, ad vindicandum et puniendum hoc malum neces- 
sitas imperatur, et hoc vobis Dei summi lege praecipitur, ut severitas vestra idelolatriae 
facirius omnifarium persequatur. Audite et commendate sanctis sensibus vestris, quid de 
_ isto facinore Deus jubeat. (Here follows: Deut. xiii. 6-10. Then it is added:) Nec filio 
jubet parci, nec fratri, et per amatam conjugem gladium vindicem ducit. Amicum quogue 
sublimi severitate persequitur, et ad discerpenda sacrilegorum corpora omnis populus ar- 
matur.  Integris etiam civitatibus, si in isto fuerint facinore deprehensae, decernunter ex- 
cidia: et ut hoc Providentia Vestra manifestius discat, ‘constitutae legis sententiam pro- 
feram, etc. 

22 Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, 4, (A.D. 353): Placuit, omnibus locis atque urbibus universis 
claudi protinus templa, et accessu vetitis omnibus, licentiam delinquendi perditis abnegari. 
Volumus etiam, cunctos sacrificiis abstinere. Quodsi quis aliquid forte hujusmodi perpe- 
traverit, gladio ultore sternatur. Facultates etiam perempti fisco decernimus vindicari, 
et similiter affligi rectores provinciarum, si facinora vindicare neglexerint. Comp. L, 5, 
(A.D. 353,) and L. 6) (a.D. 356). "However the heathen priesthood were restored in cases 
of vacancy, xii. 1, 46, (A.D. 358)—A prohibition of the adoption of Judaism, Cod. Th. xvi. 8, 


the 


CHAP. I1—STRUGGLE WITH PAGANISM. §75..CONSTANTINE. 275 


carried out in Rome and. Alexandria.”*. Every where else hea- 
thenism from this time forward was obliged to conceal itself in 
the country, in remote corners** (hence Pagani. acres 
Constantius died in 361. 
These violent measures had certainly the effect. of encrinte 
the eyes of the heathen people to the impotency of their gods 
and the fraud of their priests ;*° but with nobler patriotic spirits 
they tended rather to increase the prejudices against Christian- 
ity, so partisan as it appeared to be, and favored by measures so 
unjust. Whatever truth they discovered in it appeared to them 
to have been already taught by the ancient philosophers.” They 
regarded the positive doctrines of it as barbarian superstitions, 
while the theological controversies concerning these doctrines 
brought suspicion on Christianity, and turned its professors into — 


7, (A.D. 357): Si quis, lege venerabili constituta, ex Christiano Judaeus effectus sacrilegis 
spottnd aggregetur, cum accusatio fuerit ccimprohett facultates ejus dominio fact jussimus 
vindicari. 

23 The prefects of the city at this time were heathen. See Ridiger p. 31, i ore 
chus, lib. x. Ep. 61, (also in Opp. 8. Ambrosii, ed. Benedict. t. ili. p. 872. Comp. the 
remarks of the Benedictine editor) says with reference to the presence of Constantius in 
Rome’ in the year 357: Nihil decerpsit sacrarum virginum privilegiis, decrevit nobilibus 
sacerdotia, Romanis caeremoniis non negavit impensas, et per omnes vias aeternae urbis 
laetum secutus senatum, vidit placido ore delubra, legit inscripta fastigiis deuam nomina, 
percontatus est templorum origines, miratus est conditores: Cumaque alias religiones ipse 
sequeretur, has servavit imperio, A calendar of the year 354 (in Graevii Thes. antiqu. 
Rom. viii. 95,) gives all the heathen festivals as constantly observed. 

24 Especially on account of the spies which now appeared, curiosi, see Valesius ad 
Ammian. Marc. xv. 3, 8. 

25 The expression is first found in a law of Valentinian, 4.p. 368, (Cod. Theodos. lib. xvi. 
tit. 2; 1. 18,) and about the same time in Marius Victorinus de éuoovoi recipiendo (Graeci, 
quos "EAAgvac vel Paganos vocant, multos Deos dieunt), and in his comm. in Ep. ad Gala- 
tas in A. Maji Script. vett. nova collectio, t. iii. P. ii. p. 29.. Under Theodosius this name is 
the usualone. For the explanation of it see Paulus Orosius (about 416) histor. praef: qui ex 
“locoram agrestium compitis et pagis pagani vocantur. Prudentius (about 405) has for it 

Peristeph. x. 296: pago dediti; in Symmachum, i.-620: pago impliciti, cf. Severi Sancti 

Endelechii (about 400) Carmen de mortibus boum, v, 105: Signum, quod perhibent essé 
-erucis Dei, magnis qui colitur solus in urbibus. ‘See T. Flav. Clementis Hymn. in. Chris- 
- tam servatorem. Sev. Sancti Endel. jwermean bucol. de-mortibus boum, ed. F. Piper (Got- 
tingae. 1835. 8). p. 85. : 

26 Eusebius de vita Const. iii. 57: Ildvrec & of xpiv deouaipovec, Tov éeyxov Tic 
abTov mAdvne abraic Speaey épGvrec, tay & dravtaxyod vedv Te Kat lpuudrov épy@ 
Dedpevor tiv épnuiav, of uév TH CwTypiv mpocédevyov Ady oi 0’, ei Kal TOdTO uy Erpat- 
TOV, The your marpgiac KateyivwoKov hararérytocs éyédov te Kal Kateyédoy Tov TdAar 
vourilouévav aitoic Oedv. 

ae Angustinus Ep. 34 mentions libros beatissimi Papae Ambrosii,—quos adversus non- 
nullos imperitissimos et superbissimos, qui de Platonis libris Dominum profecisse conten- 
dunt, (de Doctr. christ. ii. 43: qui dicere ausi sunt, omnes Domini nostri J. Chr. sententias, 
quas mirari et praedicare coguntur, de Platonis libris eum didicisse) diligentissime et copi- 
osissime scripsit, 


276 SECOND: PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 324-451. 


ridicule.** On the other hand, paganism gained in this respect, 
that the ancient classic culture and literature, containing a re- 
_ ligious doctrine at once pure and national, seemed chiefly to be- 
‘long to it and to be intrusted to its keeping.*® The most cele- 


brated schools of rhetoric and philosophy in Alexandria, Athens,°** | 


- ete., had heathen preceptors.. The new platonic philosophy was 
silently working in favor of paganism,*! Jamblichus (}{ 333), 
the great orators Libanius ({ 395), Himerius (+ 390), and 
Themistius (| 390), were heathen;* while there were few 
Christian scholars who could rival thom, like the two Apolli- 
naris in Laodicea in Syria; and these had to struggle with the 
prejudices against all heathen learning, which were increased 
by monachism.** Thus the most distinguished spiritual orators 
among the Christians were obliged to reeeive their education in 
heathen schools. 

Under these circumstances it can not appear strange that we 
should find most attachment to paganism in the higher ranks ; ** 


28 Euseb. de vita Constant. ii.¢.61. Ei¢ tocodrov 67 jAavvev Groriac h TOV yivopévar 
béa Gor 7j6n ev abroi¢c pécote TGy riotav Oedtpote TA Cera Tic évOéov didacKariac THY 
aicyicrTny drouévery yAetnv. Gregor. Naz. Orat. i. p.34: MccotpeOa év Toic éOvect'—a 
Kar GAAnhov éxivoodpmev, kata TavTwv Exovot’ Kai yeyévapev Oéatpov katvov—ndor 
uLkpod Toi¢ Movnpotc, Kai Exit mavTi¢g Katpod Kai Térov, év dayopaic, éy nétoLg.—iHdn Oh 
mponAGouev kal péxpt Tig oKnVAC—Kai peta Tv GééeAyeoTaTav yeAGucba, nal obdev 
obtw TéepTvdv TO dkovoudTur Kai Deanatwv, O¢ Xpioriavd¢ kwuwdotpevoe, TadTa huiv 6 
mpeg GAAHLOvE TéAEUOE; K. T. A. 


29 Libanius in his Apologeticus, ed. Reiske, vol. iii. p. 437, dates from the persecution of - 


heathenism by Constantine tyv dnd tév iepOv éxi tod¢ Adbdyove itipiav.—oixeia yap, 
oluat, kai ovyyer® Tatra dugorepa, lepd Kai Héyot. 

30 Respecting them see Schlosser in his Archive fir Geschichte und Literatar, Bd. 1- 
(Frankf. a. M. 1830,) S. 217. On the school at Athens see Ullmann’s Gregorius von 
Nazianz. (Darmstadt 1825) 8. 27, ff. Gregorii Nazianz- Orat. xx. p. 321, (ed. Bened. Orat. 
xliii. p. 787): BAaBepai wev— AGjvat, Ta cic puxyny’ Kal yap TAovTobar Tov KaKdY TAOd- 
Tov, Ta EldwAa, WaAXOV THe GAAS ‘EAA CoC, Kal yadexdv UH CvvapracbAvat Tol¢ TODTwY 
émavétaic Kal cuvnyopotc. 

1 Eunapius in vita Aedesii (in the beginning): Kovorartivoc é@acixeve, Ta te TOV 

lepov exupavéorara KaraoTpegu, Kai Ta TOv XpioriavGy ‘dveyelpwr, olkjuata* Ta 62 
towe kai TO TOY Oman ov & dplarov mpd¢ protTnpladn Tivd cLwnyy Kak lepogavTinay exepv- 
Giav émipperée qv Kai ovvekéKAtTO. 

#2: See an account of them in Dr. A. Westermann’s Gesch. d. griech. Beredsamkeit. 
(Leipzig. 1833). S, 239. 

33 They were for some time excommunicated because they kept up intercourse with 
the heathen ‘sophist Epiphanius, and had been present when he read a hymn to Bacchus, 
(Socrates, ii. 46. Sozom. vi. 25.) 

34 Comp. the steadfastness of Aristophanes in heathenism, Libanii Orat. pro Arist. ed. 
Reiske, vol. i. p. 447, s. Hence the rhetorician Victorinus did not venture -at first to 
make his conversion public: Augustini Confess. viii. 3: Idolis sacrisque sacrilegis tunc 
tota fere romana nobilitas inflata inspirabat populos. 4: Amicos suos reverebatur offen- 
dere superbos daemonicolas, quorum ex culmine babylonicae dignitatis, quasi ex cedris 


a 


CHAP. IL—STRUGGLE WITH PAGANISM. §75. CONSTANTIUS. 277 


or that we should hear even from Christian writers, that among 
the great numbers which certainly passed over to Christianity at 
this time, the majority were unfortunately led to that. step 
merely by external considerations.*° Others, on the contrary, 


wavered between the eld and new religion, hoping to find the 


truth between. From this tendency even new sects sprang up, 
of which the Massalians (Euchites, Euphemites, @cooeBeic) in 
Phoenicia and Palestine,** and the Hypsistarit in Cappadocia,*’ 


Libani, quas nondum contriverat Dominus, graviter ruituras in se inimicitias arbitra- 
Datur. 

35 Eusebius vita Const. iv. 54: Kai ydp odv dAnOac dio yaxerd TadTa Kata Tovc OnAov- 
qévove TobToue Kal abroi KaTevojoauer’ éExitpLByv anAgoTwv. Kai “oxOnpSv avdpav Tov 
rdvra Avpatvouéver Biov* cipwrveiav tr GAektoyv tov THY éxxAnoiav imodvouévwr Kal 
76 Xptotiavaev éExixdderac oynpatiGouévav bvoua. Td 0 aitot (Kwvorartivov) oAdy- 
Qpurov Kai grAéyabov—tvijyer abrov TLoTEvEly TO CyRwaTL TOY Xprotiavov elvat voutco- 
pévov. Such apparent Christians are described by Libanius Orat. pro templis (ed. Reiske 


vol. ii. p. 177), in the church: Karaordytec dé ei¢ oxfjua TO Tv edyouévar, 7 oidéva Ka- 


Robo, 7 Tode Geode, ob Ka2Gc pév Ex Tod ToLodTOV Ywpiov, KaAcdoL GF ov. “Qorep ovv 
4p tai¢ Tpaypdiate 6 tov Tépavvor eiciav obK tot? ripavvoc, GA’ Step Hv mpd Toi mpoG- 
wneiov. obtw Kai éxeivav Exaotoc tTHpel wév abtov aKivyTtor, doxei d2 tobToLe KeKiv7oat. 

36 Epiphanius Haer. Ixxx. Massalianorum, §1. Maocajuavoi, Ebgquirar—ée *EAAgQvav 
puGrTo, obre "lovdaicue mpocavéxovrec, obte Xpiotiavol dxdpyovtec, obre dd Layap- 
eiTov, GAIAM wovov *EAAnvec bvtec d70ev: Kai Oeode pév AéyovTec, undevi undév rpocKr- 
voorrec, Evi 0é paver d7Oev 76 ofBacg véwovtec Kal KaAodvTEC TavTOKpaTopa’ TLVac dé olKOUE 
éavroic catackevdcartec, 7 Témouc TAaTetc, d6pwv dikny, xpocevyactabrac éxddouv. §2: 
"Ev ddAotg 62 rérotc dicer Kai (leg. mpocevyac)’ExxAnoiac duotéuare éavtoic rojoavrec 
xa’ éorépav Kai Kata tiv &w, eta TOAATC Avyvawiag Kal GdTuVv ovvabpotvouevel, ext 
moAv Te KaTadeyuatia [leg. karaAnyudtia cantiunculas] tiva 76 Tév Tap’ abtoic axov- 
daiar, cai ebonuiac tivac O7Oev cic Tov Gedv roLtotuevorc—dorep Gedv &&tAeotmevor EavTove 
dnaréovv. Cyrillus Alex. de adoratione in spiritu et veritate lib. iii. (ed. Auberti, t. i. p. 92) 
says of the religion of those who were not the children of Abraham in the old world, Jethro, 
Melchisedek, ete. IIpocexivouy piv ydp—inpicrw GeG—mpocedéxovto dé Kai érépovc 
raya tov Geode, EvapiOuodvrec abT@ Ta efaipera THY KTLCLETUY, yIV Te Kal obpavéy, HALOV 
«wal cehgvyy, kai Ta TOY dotpwr éxiogudtepa. Kai rAnupéAnua pév dpyaiov h éri rade 
Katagbopa Kai rAdvyorc, dijKer dé xai cic dedpo Kai xaparteiverac: gpovoiat yap dde 
mapadnpoovrec Etc TOv év 7H Potvixn Kai Madaorivy tivéc, ol odd pév abrove CeoceBeic 


évoudlovowy, cipwov dé tiva Opyokeiac dtacteiyovat péony, obte Toic "lovdaiwy eect kaba- 
_ pac, obre Toi¢ 'EAAjvav rpockeipevor, cic dudw 62 Gorsp Stappixtobuevot kai weepiopue- , 


_-yvot. To these, too, Libanius perhaps refers, Lib. Ep. ad Priscianum Praesidem Palaest. 
{ed. Vales. innote ad Socr. 1,22. Lib. Ep. ed. Wolf, p. 624): Ol rdv 7AL0v obo: Oepareton- 
tec Gvev aiparoe, kal TiwGvrec Gedv mpoonyopia devtépa, kai THY yaorépa KoAdlovrec, Kaz 
év Képdet Tovobuevor Ty Tig TedevTHe Huépav, ToAAayod pév eict TI¢ yi¢, RavTaxow dé 
 Ohéyot, kat adikotor pev oidéva, Avrodivtat d2 br’ éviwv’ Botdoyuac dé rove év Tladae- 
tivy Tobtwv diatpiSovrac THY onv dperny Exevv KaTagvy7y, Kal eivat ogiow Gdetav, Kal 
ph eeivar toic BovAopévore eic abrode DBpiverv. Valesius supposes the Manichaeans to 

be meant here. f 

37 Concerning this sect, see especially Gregory of Nazianzum in the funeral oration on 
this father Gregory, who had at first belonged to them, Orat. xviii. (al. xix.) § 5. He 
designates the party as éx dvoiy évavTiwTarol ovykeKpapuern, EAAnviKRG Te KAGYHG Kai 
VOULKIC Teparetac Gv audotépwv Ta wépn guyor, éx Epav ouvetéOn: THe ney yap Ta 


eldaha wai rag Ouatag dromepropevor, Tysdot TS mip Kal Te AOyva. THe d2-Td C4BBaToY 


Tron eae N eae eye 


278 SECOND. PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 324-457, 


of nearly the. same sentiments, appeared in the first half of the 
fourth century. Toward the end of the same century, the Cae- 
licolae in Africa arose.** None of these parties, however, attain- 
ed to much importance or continued long. 


» 


§ 76. 


JULIAN. THE APOSTATE. 


A. Neander tber den Kaiser Julianus und sein Zeitalter. Leipzig. 1812. 8. (Compare 
Schlosser’s review in the Jen. A. L. Z. Jan. 1813..S. 121, ff) Neander’s Kirchengesch. 
ii.i. 75. C. Ullmann’s Gregorius v. Nazianz, der Theologe. Darmst. 1825. 8. S. 72, ff 
C. H. van Herwerden de Juliano Imp. relig. christ. hoste, eodemque vindice. Ludg. 
Bat. 1827.8. Julian d. Abtrimnige, v. D. G. Fr. Wiggers, in Iigen’s Zeitschr. f. hist. 

’ Theol. vii. 1, 115. Gfrdrer’s Kirchengesch. ii. 1, 155. 


The injustice which Julian had to endure from the frst Chris- 


tian emperors, the strict education by which Christianity was | 


attempted to be forced upon him, and his early private acquaint- 
ance with new-platonic philosophers, especially Maximus, had 
early disposed him toward heathenism, whose dead forms he 
saw animated with so much life by the new-platonists.! When 
he attained to the imperial dignity (361), he declared himself 


aidovpevot, Kai THY Tepi TA TpdOBarTa (leg. TO wepi TA BpGuara) & Tiva peKpoAoyiay, Ty 
areptTougyv atyalovot. ‘Yyiotdpioe teic taretvoic dvoua, Kai 6 wavToKpatwp df povos 
avroic céBdoputoc. Gregorius Nyss. contra Eunom. (Opp. i. 12): ‘Yyoriavév aitn éoriv 
4 Tpo¢ Tove Xprariavove d:agopa, TO Bed ev adrove buohoyeiv eivai riva, bv dvoudfov- 
ov inpiotov, 7 mavToxpdtopa’ sarépa d& abrov eivat un mapadéyeoOat. Information 
respecting the Hypsistarians, Massalians, OeoceBeic, etc.: C. Ullmann de Hypsistariis 
comm. Heidelb. 1823. 4. Guil. Boehmer de Hypsistariis, opinionibusque quae super eis 
propositae sunt. Berol. 1824. 8. Ullmann in the Heidelb. Jahrb. 1824, no. 17. A re- 
viewer in the Jen. A. L. Z.Dec. 1824. 8. 455. Ullmann Gregorius v. Nazianz. Darmst. 
1825. S. 558. Bdéhmer einige Bemerkungen zu den y. d. H. Prof. Ullmann und mir anfge- 
stellten Ansichten tber den Ursprung und den Charakter der Hypsistarier. Hamburg: 
1826. 8. Ulimann explains the origin of the Hypsistarii from a blending together of Juda- 
ism and Parsism; Bohmer, following Cyril (see above, note 36), regards them as the 
same party as the Massalians and @eoceGeic, and perceives in them the remnant of a 
monotheism derived from primitive revelation, but afterward disfigured by Sabaeism. 
Gesenius Monum. Phoeniciae, i. 135, i. 384, puts along with them the Abellonii, ap. 
Augustin. de Haer.c. 87. D'J* oyas from wy 2 AN; but the Abellonii are manifestly 
a Christian sect. 

*8 There are two laws of Fidhotes: against them, Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 5, 1. 43, a.p. 
408 (Caelicolae, qui nescio cujus dogmatis novi conventus habent), and lib. xvi. tit. 8, b 
19, a.D. 409. Comp. Gothofredus on the last law, and J. A. Schmid Hist. Caelicolarum. 
Helmst. 1704. 

* Henke de theologia Juliani diss,.1777 (reprinted in his Opusc. academ. Lips, 1802, 3. 
-353, 88.). 


» 


ts es 


a) Pe a a er. a 





CHAP. 1—STRUGGLE WITH PAGANISM. §76. JULIAN. 279 


openly in favor of the. ancient national religion, to which he en- 
deavored to impatt a more moral and religious form, even by 
introducing many practices borrowed from Christianity,’ while 
he himself thought that he was only restoring the worship of 
the gods to its original purity, and practiced it with greater 


zeal.* He took away their privileges from the Christians,‘ and 


forbade them to appear as public teachers of the national litera- 
ture ;° but he promised them full toleration in other respects. 
He was guilty, however, of many acts of injustice toward them, 
often, it is true, provoked by their intemperate zeal. But they 


2 Juliani Epist. 49, ad Arsacium Pontif. Galatiae, on the morals and conduct of priests 
. (comp. especially Fragmentum in Juliani Opp. ed. Spanh. p. 298. Ullmann’s Gregor. v. 


Nazianz, S. 527, ff), support of the poor, and erection of houses for the reception of 


strangers. Ep. 52, concerning penitents. Julian established hierarchical gradations 
among the priests (Ep. 62), and wished them to receive higher honor than civil officers 
(Fragmentum, p. 296, Ep. 49). Sozomenus y. 16 says of him: 'YroAaBav, tov Xprottar- 
Lopov Thy abvataacty éyewv éx Tod Biov Kai Tig ToALTEiag THY abtoy UETLOVTwY, dLEvoEiTO 
Tavrayn Tove éAAnvixodvs vaode TH mapacKevg Kai TH TaEEr THE Xptotiavev Opycketac 
dtaxooueiv* Bhyact te, Kai mpoedpiaic, Kai éAAnvixdv doyydtav Kai rapaivécswv 
6idacxadAore te Kal dvayvdoraie, OpOv Te /yTov Kai juepGv TeTaypévate edyaic, dpovtia- 
typtowe Te GvdpGv Kai yvvaikdyv giAocogeiv éyywxétwv (Julian led even an ascetic life, 
ef. Misopogon, in Opp. p. 345, 350. Ammianus Marcellin. xxv. 4), kai kataywyioug Sévwv 
Kal nTayGv, Kal TH GAAy TH Tepl Tove Jeouévove giAavOpuria TO EAAnVIKOY déyua 
oeuvivar’ éxovoiwy Te Kal dkovoiwy duaptnuatwyv Kata THY Tov XpiotiavGv rapddocw 
é« wetapedttag ovppetpov Tééat cugpoviopov. Oby Axiora, O2 GnA@oat ARéyerar Ta 
ovvéjuata Tév émickomlKOv ypaypaTtwrv, k. tT. A, Cf. Gregorii Nazianz. adv. Julian. Orat. 
iii. p. 101, ss. 

3 In a manner too zealous even for cultivated heathens, Ammianus Marcell. xxy. 4: 
Praesagiorum sciscitationi nimiae deditus—superstitiosus magis, quam sacrorum legitimus 
observator, innumeras sine parsimonia pecudes mactans, ut aestimaretur, si revertisset de 
Parthis, boves jam defuturos. ; 

4 The law concerning’ the restoration of possessions held by them in the cities has 
strangely enough found its way into the Cod. Theod. lib. x. tit. 3, 1.1. Cf. Sozom. v.25. 

5 Juliani Epist. 42: “Atorov elvai wor gaivetac didacKew éxeiva Tobe GvOpérove, boa 
“eq vouifouow eb sew? GAN ei wév olovtat coda, Ov eiaww ésnynral, kat ov dGorep 
mpogytat Kdbyvrat, (yAotiTwcav aitdy mpdrov rHv ei¢ Tod¢e Oeore eboéBecav. ei d2 [del. 
ei¢] rode Tysuwrdtove broAauBdvovor mexAavqcbat, BadiLévTwv elc Tag Tov TariAaiwr 
éxkdAnoiag, é&yynoéusvoe Marbaiov cai Aovkay, k..7..A. Socrates, iii. 12, 16. . Sozomenus, 
v. 18. Ammian. Marcellin. xxii. 10: Illud autem erat inclemens, obruendum perenni 
silentio, quod arcebat docere magistros rhetoricos et grammaticos, ritus christiani cultores 
(cf. xxv. 4). The sacred national literatare appeared to him to be profaned by the contra- 
dictory and scoffing Christian interpretation. But there is no ground in this to attribute to 
him the design of degrading the Christians into a state of ignorance, as has been fre- 
quently done by writers. For there were so few Christian grammarians, on account 
of the prejudices with which they had to contend among their brethren of the same faith 
(see § 75, note 27), that Christians had almost their only opportunity of studying the ancient 


literature under heathen preceptors, a thing which they might yet do without prohibition, . 
In the mean time, however, some Christian authors, especially the two ‘Apollinaris, and. 


Gregory of Nazianzum, were led by that prohibition to attempt imitations of heathen. 
works in poetry and eloquence with biblical materials, Socrat. iii. 16. Sozom. v. 18. 
§ Jaliani Ep. 52, ad Bostrenos, concerning the Christian bishops: “Ors uj tupavveiy 





~ 


; 


280 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 324-451. 


had still more to suffer from the heathen governors and people. 
Hence it was natural that many who had hitherto been Christ- 
ian professors for the sake of external advantages, should now 
go back to heathenism from the same motives.’ The Jewish 
religion was respected by Julian as an ancient national faith ; 
and on his march against the Persians, he even gave permission 
for the temple at Jerusalem to be rebuilt, though it was soon after 
destroyed. On this same expedition he composed in Antioch, 
where he bore the scoffs of the Christian populace with philosoph- 
ical indifference, his work against Christianity. Soon after 
this he was killed in a battle with the Persians (363).” 


&eoT.v abtoic,—rapotvvipevor Tdvta Kivodet AiPov, Kai cuvrapdrrey-Todpaot Ta 
TAHOn, Kai oTractdlerv.—Oddéva yoov abtdv Gxovta mpic Bwpodvc tGuev EAxecbar* dtdp- 
bgdnv 02 abtoic xpocayopedouer, ei tic Exdv YepviBav Kal orovday juiv eéder Kotvo- 
velv, Kabapota xpoogdépecbar TodTOV, Kai Tove atoTpoTaiove ixetedetv Oeoi¢e.—TEa yoor 
TAGOn Ta Tapa TGV Acyouévwr KAnpixGv éEqrarnuéva xpbdn2Aov Sti rabty¢e doatpebeione 
oraciiger THE Gdeiac. Ol yap eig TotTO TeTvpavvnKbtec,—TobodvTeEc O2 TV XpoTépav 
Ovvacreiav, btu un dixdlewy efeotw adtoic, kai ypagew diabyxac, Kai dAAoTpiove 
ogetepivecbar KAgpovc, Kai Ta mdvTa éavtoi¢g Tpocvéuerv, TavTa KLvodotv dKooutac 
KaAwv—eic dtdotacty GyovTes Ta TAHON. 

7 Of them speaks (sometimes in the manner of Julian) Asterius ep. Amaseae orat. adv. 
avaritiam (in Combefisii Auctar. novuam p. 56): AaGévTec troayéoerg Tapa TGv abéwy Kai 
aceBdv, 7 Gaijg apyovtixic, 7 mepiovoiag tic éx BactAukOv raptetwr, Gorep tuariov 
tayéwc THY’ Opnokeiav petnugiécavTo.—sétt yap 6 Baoirede Exeivoc—adréc Te dvadic 
fOvev Saipoorv, kai Toig TovTe BovAopévorc roteiv TOAAG mpoeTéOn Ta yépa, Téc0L THY 
éxxAgaiav ddévteg xi Tove Bapod¢c Edpayov ; zocor 68, Td TOY GkiwyadTwv déAeap 
eiodefGuevot, wet’. ékeivov Katémioy TO THe wapaBacews GyKiotpov; Cf. Themistii 
Oratio consularis ad Jovianum, ed. Petav. p. 278: "EAeyyoueba wavy yeXoiwe ddovupyidac, 
ob Oedv Ocpaxetov7ec, Kai Adov Eipixov petaBarAduevor Tac aytoTeiac.. Kal wéAaL pév 
eic Onpapévyc, viv 62 éxavtec KéBopvor, utkpod Seiv xbec év Toig déKa, ciuepor 62 év Toic¢ 
‘evTHKovra, oi abtol mpoc Bapoic, mpoc iepeiowe, mpoc GyGApact, mpo¢ Tparélatc. 

§ Juliani Epist. 25—An earthquake and flames of fire prevented the workmen. Gregor. 
Nazianz. Orat.ivy. Chrysostomus Homil.iii.adv. Judaeos. Ammianus Marcellinus, xxiii. 
i. Socrates, iii. 20. Sozom. v. 22. Theodoret, iii. 15. In like manner, fire burst forth 
when Herod wished to penetrate farther into the sepulcher of David (Joseph. Antiq. xvi. 
7.1.) These phenomena are explained by the bituminous soil. Comp. Michaelis on the 
vaults under the temple-mountain in Lichtenberg’s and Forster's Gotting. Magazin, 3tem 
Jahrg. (1783) S. 772. 

® According to Hieron. Ep. 84, ad Magnum 7, and Cyrillus adv. Jul. prooem. 3 books. 
Fragments in Cyrilli Alexandr. adv. Julianum libb. x. published separately: Défense du 
Paganisme par Yempereur Julien par M. le Marquis d’Argens. Berlin. 1764. ed. 3. 1769. 
8. (Comp. the review in Ernesti’s n. theol. Bibl. Th. 8. S. 551, ff) 

10 Comp. Ammianus Marcellinus, xxv. 3, Evutropii Breviar. x. 8, both of whom accom- 
panied the expedition—Libanius éaitdywo¢ é” "lovAcav® (ed. Reiske, vol. i. p. 614) hints 
that he was killed by a Christian, cf. Sozomenus, vi. 1, 2. Juliani Imp. Opera (Orationes 
viii. Caesares, Micoxdéywv, Epistolae 65) et Cyrilli contra impium Julianum lib. x. ed. 
Ezechiel Spanhemius. Lips. 1696. fol. 





CHAP. I1—STRUGGLE WITH PAGANISM. § 77. TOLERATION. 28] 


6°77. 


GENERAL TOLERATION TILL 381. » 


The reign of Jovian ({ 364) was in so critical times that he 
found it advisable to allow full freedom to all religions,’ although 
he himself was a zealous Christian.” But this very disposition 
of the emperor encouraged the Christians in many places not 
only to demand restitution for injuries actually suffered under 
the preceding reign, but also to exhibit their hatred against the 
pagans, which had been increased by Julian’s measures.* The 
legal toleration of all religions also continued under the follow- 
ing emperors, Valentinian I. (in the west + 375),* and donee 
(in the east + 378°), although they forbade bloody sacrifices ; ° 
like manner, in the first years of the emperors Gratian ste 
- Valentinian IJ. in the west, and Theodosius in the east, till 
the year 381; while the continued irruptions of barbarous na- 
tions and internal commotions compelled them to avoid every 
thing by which disturbances might have been increased still 
more. 


1 Themistii Oratio consularis ad Jovianum, ed. Petav. p. 278: Té te GAAa abtoxpétwp 
ay Te kai cic Tédog écbmevog, TO Tie GyLoTEiag uépog Gravtog elvat vouobeTEic’. Kai TodTO 
Cnadv_rov Oedv b¢ 76 pév Every Tpdg eboéBerav Exitydeiwc, Tig dicews KoLVdv éxoince THE 
avOparivyg: tov tpdérav dé tig Oepareiag ékiwWe tie év ExdoTw BovaAgceuc. 

2 He restored all rights to the churches and clergy, Sozom. vi. 3, also the civragt¢ rob 
sitov (comp. § 53, note 9, § 76, note 4), but by way of preliminary only the third part, on 
account ofa famine. Theodoret. iv. 4. 

3 To this refers Libanius Epitaph. in Julianum ed. Reiske, vol. i. p. 619. The shutting 

up of the temples, and the withdrawment of the, priests and philosophers, of which 
Socrates, iii. 24, speaks, was the consequence of fear. 
' * Cod. Theodos. lib. ix. tit. 16,1, 9. (A.D. 371): Haruspicinam ego nullum cum -male- 
ficiorum causis habere consortium judico, neque ipsam, aut aliquam praeterea concessam 
a majoribus religionem genus esse arbitror criminis.. Testes sunt leges a me in exordio 
imperii mei datae, quibus unicuique, quod animo imbibisset, colendi libera facultas tributa _- 
est. Nec haruspicinam reprehendimus, sed nocenter exerceri vetamus. Cf. Ammian, 
“Marcell. xxx. 9. Riidiger de statu Pagan. p. 42, ss. Evidences of heathen worship at 
this time may be derived from inscriptions. Beugnot, i. 270. 

§ Themistii Oratio ad Valentem de religionibus, known only in the Latin translation 
of Andreas Duditius (ed. Petav. p. 499), with the similar contents of the Orat. ad hia 
{note 1). 

® According to Libanii Orat. de templis, ed. Reiske, vol. ii. p. 163: Td Ove lepeila~ 
ExwatOn rapa roiv ddeAgoiv, 4AX 0b. Td ABavwriv- 





~~ 


282 . SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I—A_D. 324-451, 


a 


§ 78. 


SUPPRESSION OF PAGANISM BY THEODOSIUS. 


Riidiger de statu Paganorum sub Impp. christ. p. 47. Jan. Henr. Stuffken Diss. de 
’-Theodosii M. in rem. christianam meritis. Lugd. Bat. 1828. 8. p.16. A. Beugnot Hist. 
de la déstruction du Paganisme en Occident, i. 345. 


After Theodosius had secured the east against the Goths, he 
directed his greatest energies to the suppression of paganism. 
In the same year in which he summoned the second oecumenical 
synod at Constantinople (381), he forbade apostasy to pagan- 
ism,’ but still allowed the other rites of heathen worship to be 
practiced except sacrifice. The two emperors of the west fol- 
lowed his example. Grattan laid aside the dignity of pontifex 
maximus,” commanded the altar of Victoria to be removed from 
the senate-house, and took away all privileges from the pagan 
worship,* although he was obliged to allow in Rome the sacri- 
fices elsewhere forbidden, as Theodosius had to do at Alexan- 


1 Cod. Theodos. lib. xvi. tit. 7. 1.1: His, qui ex Christianis Pagani facti sunt, eripiatur 
facultas jusque testandi. Omne defuncti, si quod est, testamentum, submota conditione, 
rescindatur. Gratian and Valentinian made the same regulation in the west. L. 3 (382). 
—Lib. xvi. tit. 10. 1. 7 (381): Si qui vetitis sacrificiis, diurnis nocturnisque, velut vesanus 
ac-sacrilegus incertorum consultor (animum) immerserit, fanumque sibi aut templum ad 
hujuscemodi sceleris excusationem assumendum crediderit, vel putaverit adeundum, 
proscriptioni se noverit subjugandum, cum nos justa institutione moneamus, castis Deum 
precibus excolendum, non diris carminibus profanandum. 

2 According to Zosimus, iv. c, 36, who alone speaks of the circumstance, he might have 
refused it as soon as it fell to him, that is, after the death of Valens (for only the first 
Augustus was pontifex maximus). This supposition, however, is contradicted by the fact 
that Gratian bore the same title forsometime. See Ausonii Gratiarum actio pro consulata, 
and the inscriptions in Orelli Inscriptionum latinarum amplissima collectio, vol. i. p. 245. 
The usual assumption that Gratian merely declined the priestly dress offered to him, but 
yet bore the title, is arbitrary; for Zosimus speaks in express terms of the refusal of the 
dress and of the title. Hence, it must be maintained that Gratian wore that dignity for 
some years, and then laid it aside. J. A. Bosius de pontificata maximo Impp. praecipue 
christianoram, in Graevii Thesaur. antiquitt. Rom. t. v. p. 271, ss.. De la Bastie du 
souverain pontificat des empereurs-Romains in the Mémoires de Acad. des Inscr. t. xv. 
p. 75, ss. Jos. Eckhel Doctr. numor. vett. P. ii. vol. 8. p. 386, ss. Birger Thorlacius de 
Imp. Rom., qui religioni Christi nomen dederunt, pontificatu maximo. Havn. 1811. 

3 He took away Vestalium virginum praerogativam, Sacerdotii immunitatem (which 
Valentinian I. had confirmed even in 371, Cod. Theod. xii. i. 75) caused the real estates 
belonging to the temples (agros virginibus et ministris deficientium voluntate legatos) to 
be drawn into the exchequer (cf. Theod. xvi. 10, 20), and deprived the vestal virgins and 
priests of victum modicum justaque privilegia. Symmachus, lib. x. Ep. 61. Ambros. 
Ep. 17 i 





“CHAP. L—STRUGGLE WITH PAGANISM. § 78. THEODOSIUS. 989 


‘dria. In Rome, paganism continued to be predominant,° par- 
ticularly among families of distinction ;' but yet the attempts 
made by the prefect of the city, Q. Aurelius Symmachus, to 
have these imperial decrees abolished, and in particular the altar 
of Victoria re-erected, had no influence upon G'ratian (} 383), 
Valentinian II., and Theodosius." In the east, the Christians 
proceeded far beyond the imperial ordinances. Enterprising 
bishops led mobs of hirelings or fanatics against the temples ;* 
and the monks especially often combined for the destruction 
of all heathen sanctuaries.° The appeal trép tév lepdv (388— 


* Libanius jrép tév lepdv (ed. Reiske, vol. ii. p. 181): Od roivuy tH ‘Péun pdvor 
&guAdyOn 76 Obey, GAAA Kai TH TOD Lapdmidoc, TH TOAAG re Kai peyddAg Kai TAHOE 
kextnuévy veor, Ov Ov Kony adnadvtav avOporev Totel THY Tig Alyértov dopdv. AdTH 
68 épyov Tot Neiiov, rov NetAov d2 éotig dvaBaivewv éxt tac dpobpac wetBodca. av ob 
movovpévav, OTe Te ypy, Kai Tap’ dv, odd’ dv abroc eeAjoetev, & pot SoKovorv elddrec ok 
cal Taira dv qdéwe dveAdvtecg ok dvedeiv, GAM ddeivat tov ToTaydv ebwyetcBat Toi¢ 
Taratoic voutwote, éri uto0G TH elwO6re. 

5 According to Hieronymus in Epist. ad Gal. iv. 3, the Romans were omnium super- 
stitionum sentina. 

6 Respecting the heads of Paganism at Rome, Praetextatus, Symmachus, Flavianus, 
Caecina Albinus, etc., who are introduced speaking in the Saturnalia of Macrobius, see > 
Alph. Mahul sur la vie et les ourvages de Macrobe in the Classical Journal, xxxi. 81. 
Beugnot, i. 438. - 

7 Two embassies, with Symmachus at the head, the first in 382 to Gratian, the second 
in 384 to Valentinian Il. See Symmachi Epist. lib. x. Ep. 61. On the other side, 
Ambrosii Epist. 17 and 18, ad Valentinianum. Respecting the two later equally fruitless 
embassies, the one to Theodosius, when he was staying at Milan, the other to Valentinian, 
see Ambros. Ep. 57, ad Eugenium. Beugnot, i. 410. 

8 So Eulogius, bishop of Edessa (see Libanius pro templis, ed. Reiske, vol. ii. p. 192, ss. 
Gothofredus ad Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, 8); Marcellus, bishop of Apamea (Sozom. vii. 15. 
Theodoret. v. 21) ; but particularly Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria. See below, note 12. 
Ridiger, 1. c. p: 58, ss. 

9 Libanius érép tGv lepdv (ed. Reiske, vol. ti. p. 164): Ld pév obv ob iepa KexAeicbui 
(éxéXevoag), obte undéva mpoctévat* obte zip, odTe AiBavaTor, odTEe TAC GTO TOV GAwv 
Cvucapdroav tysa¢g éSjAacac TOY vedv, odd2 TOV Boudv. of J? pexkaverpovodvtTeg odToL 
kal TAcko piv TOY eAegavTar écbiovtec, Tovoy O& mapéyovTec TO TAHGEL TOV Exoudrov 
Toic Ov Goudtav abroic taparéurovor TO TOTOY, CvyKpdTTOVTES Oé TAdTA WypOTHTL TH 
dra réxvne abroicg meroptopévy, pévovtoc, © Pacthed, Kai Kpatodvtog Tod vouov, Héovow 
é¢’ lepa, 62a dépovte¢ Kal AiBove Kai cLdnpdr, ol 62 Kai dvev TodTwY, Yetipac Kai wddag. 
terra Mvodv. Aeia Kabaipovuévev bp0dGv, KatackarTo“éver Tolywr, KaTaoTwpévov 
Gyahpdtor, dvacropévov Baudv. todo lepetc 62 7 otydv, } TeOvavar dei. TOY TPOTaY 
68 Ketpévar, Spouoc exit ta debtepa kal tpita. Kal tpérata tporaiorg évavtia TO vipa 
Guveiperat. ToAmarac pev obv Kav Talc TéAEaLY, TS TOAD dé ev Toic Gypoic. P.168. "Eork 
68 obTog b TéAEuOC Tépoc THY pev ToT Vaoic éyKEtpévar, TOV O& Ta VTA TOlg TaAaiTOpotE 
(yedpyotc) dpratévror, ra Te Keiueva abroic ard Tie yi¢s Kal & Thégovery, Hor’ xépyovrat - 
eépovrec of EmedObvtec Ta TOV ExrreToAopKyuévwrv. Toig 0 obK dpket TavTa; GAG Kak 
yijv operepilovrat, Tv Tod Setvog lepav elvat AéyovTec, Kal TOAAOl TOY TaTpOuwr EorépyvTas 
du’ dvéuatog ovk dAnPoic. of d& ix THv éTépwrv TPVOGot KaKGY, ol TH TEeWHr, O¢ Gaot, 
tov abtOv Oeoareiorrec Océv. fv d2 of meropOnuévor mapa Tov év dotec momméva 
(karovot yap obtw¢ Grdpa ob Tévv ypnoTsr), jy odv é7BdvTe¢ ddvpwvrat, AéyouTes & 
gdixgvtat, 6 momyy obtog Tove piv éExgvece, Tore d2 Anjdaaev, dc év TH wy wee 





284 - _SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D- 324-451. 


390)*° of the eloquent Libanius, addressed to Theodosius, had 
no effect ; the heathen were immediately afterward forbidden by 
imperial laws even to repair to the temples ;*' and the destruction 
of the splendid temple of Serapis 391)’ by the violent Theophi- 
lus, bishop of Alexandria, after a bloody contest, announced the 
total overthrow of paganism in the east. 


When Theodosius had become sole. master of the entire Ro- 


man empire after the death of Valentinian II. (+ 392), he for- 
bade all kinds of idolatry by the most severe punishments 
(892) ;** and during his abode at Rome (394) he brought pub- 


metovOévar kexepdakdrag* Kaitos Tig pév one apyqc, © Bactred, Kai odtoL, TocovT@ 62 
xencwoarepoa Tov ddiotyTwr aitove, dom Tay dpyobvTav oi épyaféuevor. of pév yap 
taic¢ weritrate, of dé Toi KngHoty éoixact. Kav dxotcwoLr 4 dypov Eye Tt TGV dpraobijvar 
Suvapévor, evbag obtog év Ouoiarg cé oT, Kai devd rorei, Kal det orpareiac én” airér, 
kai méperow of cugpovioral, «. T. 2. Cf. Theodoretus, v. 21. 

10 Still incomplete in Reiske, but complete for the first time in Novus SS. Patruam 
Graecorum saeculi quarti delectus, rec. et adnotatione instruxit Lud. de Sinner. Paris. 
1842. 8. 

it Valentinian’s law for the west, of the 27th February, 391. Cod. Theodos. xvi. 10, 10: 
Nemo se hostiis polluat, nemo insontem victimam caedat, nemo delubra adeat, templa 


perlustret, et mortali opere formata simulacra suscipiat. Judices quoque hanc formam 


contineant, ut si quis—templum uspiam—adoraturus intraverit, quindecim pondo auri 
ipse protinus inferre eogatur. The same was decreed for the east by Theodosius, L. 11, 
17th June, 391. 

12 Socrates, vy. 16. Sozom. vii. 15. Theodoret. v. 22. Eunapius in vita Aedesii, ed. 
Schotti, p. 63, ss. Zosimus, v. 23, especially Rufinus, who was at that time in Palestine. 
Hist. eccl. xi. 22-30. Many impositions of the priests were hereby detected, Theodor. 
1. c., Rufinus, 1. e. 23-25. The heathens were particularly and deeply impressed by the 
circumstance that the expectation, quod si humana manus simulacrum illud (Serapis) 
contigisset, terra dehiscens illico solveretur in chaos, caelumque repente rueret in praeceps 
{Rufin. 1. c. 23), had not been fulfilled at the destruction of the statue, and the fear which 
still remained, Serapin injariae memorem aquas ultra et affluentiam solitam non largiturum 
{Rufin. 1. c. 30, cf. Libanius, above, note 4), was contradicted by an ample inundation of 
the Nile. 

13 Cod. Theodos, xvi. 10, 12. Trepp, Theodosius, Arcadius et Honorius AA. ad Rufinum, 
Pf. P.: Nullas omnino, ex quolibet genere, ordine hominum, dignitatam, vel in potestate 
positus, vel honore perfanctus, sive potens sorte nascendi, seu humilis genere, conditione, 
fortuna, in nullo penitus loco, in nulla urbe, sensu carentibus simulacris vel insontem vic- 
timam caedat, vel secretiore piaculo larem igne, mero genium, penates nidore venera- 
tus, accendat lumina, imponat thura serta suspendat. § 1. Quodsi quispiam immolare 
hostiam sacrificaturus audebit, aut spirantia exta consulere, ad exemplum majestatis reus 
licita cunctis accusatione delatus, excipiat sententiam competentem, etiamsi nihil contra 
salutem principum, aut de salute quaesierit. Sufficit enim ad criminis molem, naturae 
ipsius leges velle rescindere, illicita perscrutari, occulta recludere, interdicta tentare, finem 
quaerere salutis alienae, spem alieni interitus polliceri. § 2. Si quis vero mortali opere 
facta et aevum passura simulacra imposito thure venerabitur, ac, ridiculo exemplo metuens 
subito, quae ipse simulaverit, vel redimita vittis arbore, vel erecta effossis ara cespitibus 
vanas imagines, humiliore licet muneris praemio, tamen plena religionis injuria honorare 
tentaverit, is, utpote violatae religionis reus, ea domo seu possessione multabitur, in qua 
eum gentilitia consterit superstitione famulatum. Namque omnia loca, quae thuris 
constiterit vapore fumasse {si tamen ea in jure fuisse thurificantium probabuntur), fisco 


- 

7 

y 
<i 
74 
2 

‘ 





eS ee F tie ~ Sr 7 a in ar od to It See 


CHAP. L—STRUGGLE WITH PAGANISM. § 79. 285 


lic sacrifices to. an end by interdicting the defraying of them out 
of the imperial treasury. At that time, he even called upon the 
senate to declare themselves in favor of Christianity; but the 
slavish tokens of subjection with which they responded to him 
had so little serious consequence,’ that even heathen honors 
were offered to this zealous Christian emperor after his death.’ 


§ 79. 


TOTAL SUPPRESSION OF PAGANISM IN THE EAST—ITS STRUGGLE IN 
THE WEST AFTER THEODOSIUS. 


Riidiger, lc. p. 70, ss. Beugnot, 1. c. ii. 1, ss. 


Paganism was at present only an external ceremonial, which 
retained its hold upon a few noble spirits with a feeling of pa- 


nostro associanda censemus. § 3. Sin vero in templis fanisye publicis, aut in aedibus 
agrisve alienis tale quispiam sacrificandi genus exercere tentaverit, si ignorante domino 
usurpata constiterit, xxv. librarum auri mulctae nomine cogetur inferre, conniventem vero 
huie sceleri par ac sacrificantem poena retinebit. § 4. Quod quidem ita per judices ac 
defensores et curiales singularum urbinm volumus custodiri, ut illico per hos comperta in 
judicium deferantur, per illos delata plectantur. Si quid autem ii tegendum gratia, aut 
incuria praetermittendum esse crediderint, commotioni judiciariae subjacebunt. Illi vero 
moniti si vindictam dissimulatione distulerint, xxx. librarum auri dispendio mulctabuntur : 
officiis quoque eorum damno parili subjugandis. Dat. vi._Id. Nov. Constantinopoli, Arcadio. 
A. II. et Rufino Coss. 
14 Comp. the narrative Prudent. in Symmachum, i. 409, ss. Especially from 699, ss.: 


Adspice, quam pleno subsellia nostra senatu 

Decernant, infame Jovis pulvinar et omne 

Idolium Jonge purgata ex urbe fugandum : 

Qua vocat egregii sententia principis, ijluc 

Libera tum pedibus, tum corde frequentia transit. 
A different account, and one more accordant with later phenomena, is given by Zosimus, 
iv. 59, in his representation of the effect of Theodosius’s discourse in the senate: Mydevdg 
68 TH TapakAjoes TeLobévtoc, unde EAouEévov TOV ad’ obrEp H TOALE OKLCOn Tapadedouévav 
abtoi¢ raTpluy dvaywphoal, Kai TpoTiujoat TobTav GAoyov cvyKaTdAeoty (éxeiva pév 
yap ovidtavtag dn dStaxociow Kai xtAiow oxeddv Eteow arbpOyrov tiv mOAL oiKetv* 
étepa 68 avti Totray dAAagsapévove Td ExBnoduevov Gyvoeiv): tote 67 6 Oeoddctog 
Bapivecbat td dnudciov édeye 7 Tepe Ta lepd Kat Tac Bvoiac dandvy, Bobdeobat TE 
tadra nepiedeiv, x. T. 2. (That is to say, the usurper Eugenius had given back again the 
legacies of the heathen sanctuaries (see note 3) which had been confiscated by Gratian. 
See Ambros. Ep. 57, ad Eugenium), The consequence, Zosim. v. 38: “Ore Qeoddarog 6 
mpecBirnc, tiv Ebyeviov xaOeAdv tvpavvida, tiv ‘Péunv KkatédaBe, kal tie lepag 
dytotetag éverroince mao bdcywpiay, thy dnuoctay darayny Toig lepot¢ xopnyety dpvnoa- 
feEvod, dxyhabvovro yév iepeic nal iéperar, kateAyumdveto dé maone lepoupyiag Ta Teuévy. 
_ 15 Beugnot, i. 487. Hence the heathen poet, Claudianus de tertio Consulatu Honorii, y. 
162, ss., who lived at this time, represents the death of the emperor as an ascent to the 
gods. 


286 SECOND. PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 324-451. 


triotism ; but with the mass it was kept up merely from unre- 
flecting custom or superstitious fear. With almost all, how- 
ever, its ancient doctrine was obliged to sink under the pressure 
of new ideas.! Hence the victory of Christianity over paganism 
internally dead, could not be matter of doubt ;’ although the 
former often carried on the contest more by external means 
than by its inward power.* Many heathen could not resist 


1 Orosius Hist. vi. 1: Deum quilibet hominum contemnere ad tempus potest, nescire in 
totum non potest. Unde quidam, dum in multis Deum’ credunt, multos Deos indiscreto 
timore finxerunt. Sed hinc jam vel maxime, cum auctoritate veritatis operante, tum 
ipsa etiam ratione discutiente, discessum est. Quippe cum et philosophi eoruam—unum 
Deum auctorem omnium repererunt, ad quem unum omnia referrentur; unde etiam nanc 
pagani, quos jam declarata veritas de contumacia magis quam de ignorantia convincit, 
cum a nobis discutiuntur, non se plures Deos sequi, sed sub uno Deo magno plures minis- 
tros venerari fatentur. Restat igitur de intelligentia veri Dei per multas intelligendi sus- 
piciones confusa dissensio, quia-de uno Deo omnium paene una opinio est. The heathen 


said (Augustini Enarr. in Psalm xcvi. § 12): Non colimus mala daemonia: Angelos quos’ 


dicitis, ipsos et nos colimus, virtutes Dei magni et ministeria Dei magni. The heathen 
grammarian, Maximus of Madaura, writes to Augustine (August. Ep. 43): Olympum 
montem Deorum esse habitaculum, sub incerta fide Graecia fabulatur. At vero nostrae 
urbis forum salutarium numinum frequentia possessum nos cernimus et probamus. Equi- 
dem unum esse Deum summum sine initio, sine prole, naturae ceu patrem magnum atque 
magnificum, quis tam demens, tam mente captus neget esse certissimum? Hujus nos 
virtutes per mundanum opus diffusas multis vocabulis invocamus, quoniam nomen ejus 
cuncti, proprium videlicet, ignoramus. Nam Deus omnibus religionibus commune nomen 
est. Ita fit, ut, dum ejus quasi quaedam membra carptim variis supplicationibus prose- 
quimur, totum colere profecto videamur. No one could endure that the Christian martyrs 
should be preferred to these deities, qui conscientia nefandorum facinorum, specie glori- 
osae mortis,—dignum moribus factisque suis exitum maculati reperiunt.—Sed mihi hac 
 tempestate propemodum videtur bellum Actiacum rursus exortum, quo Aegyptia monstra 
in Romanorum Deos audeant tela vibrare, minime duratura. In Macrobii (about 410) 
Saturnalium, i. 17. A Praetextatus (comp. § 78, note 6) declares the sun to be the one 
supreme God. Si enim sol, ut veteribus placuit, dux et moderator est luminum reliquo- 
rum, et solus stellis errantibus praestat; ipsarum vero stellarum cursus ordinem rerum 
humanaruam—pro potestate disponunt :—necesse est, ut solem, qui moderatur nostra mode- 
rantes, omnium, quae circa nos geruntur, fateamur auctorem. Et sicut Maro,.cum de una 
Junone diceret, Quo numine laeso, ostendit, unius Dei effectus varios pro variis censendos 
esse numinibus ; ita diversae virtutes solis nomina Diis dederunt; unde éy 76 may sapien- 
tum principes prodiderunt. 

2 Chrysostomus de 8. Babyla contra Julianum et gentiles § 3. (Opp. ed. Montf. ii. 540), 
‘Yr’ obdevic tvoxAnbeiod mote tig ‘EAAnvixig devowWaoviag 4 mAdvn ad’ éavTipc 
éoBécOn, cat mepi éavtny dvérece, Kabdtep TGV GapaTtov Ta THKndéve TapadobévTa 
uaxpd, Kal pndevdg aita BAdrrovroc aitéuara @Ociperat, Kai diadvbévra xara 

pukpov dgaviverat. 

3 Augustinus in Evang. Joannis tract. 25.§ 10: Quam multi non quaerunt Jesum nisi 
ut illis faciat bene secundum tempus! Alius negotium habet, quaerit intercessionem 
clericoram : alius premitur ‘a potentiore, fugit ad ecclesiam: alius pro se vult interveniri 
apud eum, apud quem parum valet: ille sic, ille sic: impletur quotidie talibus ecclesia. 


Vix quaeritar Jesus propter Jesum. Cf. Id. de Catechizandis rudibus c.17. Hieronymus’ 


Comm. in Esaiam, lib. xvii.: Quod sequitur : Et venient ad te curvi,—qui detraxerant tibi 
(Bs. lx. 14), de his debemus intelligere, qui non voluntate, sed necessitate sunt Christiani, 
et metu offensae regnantium timentibus animis inclinantar. 





. 
| 
; 
, 
: 


— wr 


ss 





CHAP, L—STRUGGLE WITH PAGANISM. § 79. 989 


the external advantages presented by it. Few were ready to 
suffer for their religion.* But it is true, that in this manner 
also the number of merely external Christians was increased— 
men who still entertained heathen modes of thought and dispo- 
sition ; and the value of Christianity was by no means so gen- 
erally manifested in the practices of its confessors as before.* 
In the empire of the east (Arcadius, 395-408, Theodosius Il. 
till 450), which was less disturbed from without, the ordinances 
of Theodosius against paganism could be strictly enforced.° 
Crowds of morks. were sent about through the provinces with 
full power from the emperors, for the purpose of destroying all 
traces of idolatry.’. Even misdeeds and murders were allowed 
to pass unheeded by the emperors; such as the horrible murder 
of the female philosopher Hypatia in Alexandria (416).° ‘The 
new-platonic philosophers at Athens, and among them even the 
celebrated Proclus ({ 485),° were forced to conceal themselves 
most carefully, because they rejected Christianity. As early as 


* Augustini Enarr. in Psalm. exli. § 20: Quis eorum comprehensus est in sacrificio, cum 
his legibus ista prohiberentur, et non negavit? Quis eorum comprehensus est adorare 
idolam, ef non clamavit, non feci, et timuit ne ‘convinceretur? Tales ministros Diabolus 
habebat. He then contrasts with them the steadfastness of the Christian martyrs. Chrys- 
ostom de 8. Babyla, § 7, says of the heathen priests, udAAov dearotév Kal Tév eidddov 
68 abtév toic BactAsic Osparetovci, and describes the neglected state in which the 
temples, altars, and images of the gods were, in consequence, under Christian emperors. 

5 Thus Augustinus Enarr. in Psalm. xxv. § 14, makes a heathen reply: Quid mihi per- 
suades ut Christianus sim? Ego fraudem a Christiano passus sum, et nunquam feci: 
falsum mihi juravit Christianus, et ego nunquam. Chrysostom. in 1 Epist. ad Tim. Hom. 
x. § 3. (Opp. xi. 602): Oddeic dv jv “EAAnY, el jusic Guev Xpioriavol, d¢ dei.—Oddeic 
mpdcetolv. of yap didackéuevor zpd¢ THY TOV didacKdAwy apeT_v dpdot. Kai drav 
idwot kal jude tov abtav ExiOvpotvtac,—rzod apyew, Tod Ttivdobar, nic Suvipcovrat 
Gavudoat tov Xptotiavicpév ; ‘Opdcr Biove éExtAgwipovg, uyae ynivac, Kx. T. 2. 

6 Cod. Theod. xvi. 10,13, ss. By L. 14 their privileges were taken from the priests. 

7 So Chrysostom (Theodoret. v. 29): Mafayv trav Boiwixny ere epi Tac TOV Sayptoviay 
TeheTag peunvévat, doxnrac pev Chdw Oia muprodovpévove ovvédete, vououg 62 abrovgc 
émAioag BactAtkoic, Kata TOv eidwAikdv eéreppe Teuévov. These vduor are without 
doubt Cod. Theod. xvi. 10,16, a.p. 399: Si qui in agris templa sunt, sine turba ac tumultu 
diruantur. Cf. Chrysostom. Epistt. 28, 51, 53, 54, 55, 59, 69, 123, 126, 221. . Chrysostom 
worked in the same way in other countries also. See Procli (Episc. Constantinop. 434— 
_ 445) laudatio S. Jo. Chrys. (Orat. xx. in Combefisii Nov. auctarium, i. 468}: In Epheso 

. artem Midae nudavit, in Phrygia Matrem quae dicebatur deorum sine filiis fecit, in Caes- 
area publicana meretricia honoris vacua despoliavit, in Syria Deum impugnantes syna 
gogas evacuavit, in Perside verbum pietatis seminavit. 

® Socrates, vii.15. Damascius ap. Suidam, s. v. Hypatia. The article Hypatia of Alex- 
andria in EB. Miinch’s vermischte hist. Schrifte. Bd. 1. Ludwigsburg, 1828. 8. 

9 Vita Procli scriptore Marino ed. J: A. Fabricius. Hamb. 1700.8. His eighteen ézz- 
xelpyuata Kate XpictiavGy are contained and refuted in Johannis Philoponi libb. 18, de 
Aeternitate mundi (graece ex Trincavelli officina. Venet. 1535. fol. lat. vert. Joh Maha- 
tius. Lugd. 1557. - fol.). 





288 SECOND PERIOD.—DLV. IL—A.D. 324-451. | 


423, all visible traces of paganism had disappeared in the 
east. 10. 

It was otherwise in the west, notwithstanding ihe want of ali 
living attachment to paganism in this quarter of the world also, 
So little hold had it on the minds of the people, that even in 
Rome, its continued center, where many families of note were 
still heathen, and many of the highest places were still occupied 
by heathen, ™ sacrifices were totally discontinued, after the cost 
of public oblations had ceased to be defrayed by the state. Un- 
der the feeble reign of Honorius (395-423), the earlier laws 
against paganism still remained in force, and were even in- 

creased by the addition of several new enactments; but the 
emperor was obliged at times to limit their apace to ac- 
knowledge heathen priesthood as public offices, and to put a 
check to the destruction of temples,’ for the sake of preserving 
some degree of tranquillity. The struggle, however, between 
Christianity and paganism often proceeded here and there to acts 
_ of violence, in which the one party prevailed at one time, the oth- 
er at another. As the heathen had always been accustomed to 


10 Theodosius II. in Cod. Theodos. xvi. 10, 22. (a.p. 423): Paganos, qui supersunt, 
quanquam jam nullos esse credamus, promulgatarum legum jamdudum praescripta 
compescant. 

41 Thus Florentinus, a.D. 397, and Flavianus, 399, were Praef. urbis, Valerius Messala, 
396, Praef. praet. Italiae, Atticus Consul, 397 (Beugnot, ii.6). Praefecti urbis were Ruti- 
lius Numatianus, a.D. 413, Albinus, 414, Symmachus, 418: Praef. praet. Ital. 429 Volusia- 
nus (I. c. p. 127). 

12 Honorius had issued, in the year 408, the law Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 42: Eos qui Cathol- 
icae sectae sunt inimici, intra palatium militare prohibemus. Nullus nobis sit aliqua 
ratione conjunctus, qui a nobis fide et religione discordat. But when he afterward wished 
to nominate the heathen Generidus commander in Rhoetia, the latter did not undertake 
the office fa¢ 6. BactAede, aidot te Gua Kai xpeig ovrwbotuevoc, éxavoev éxt waot Tov 
vouov, drodove éxdoTw, THC abToOD évTe ddfnc, Epyew te Kai oTpatevecGar. Zosimus, 
v. 46. 

13 Cod. Theod. xii. i. 166 ad Pompejanum Procons. Africae, a:D, 400. 

14 The African bishops resolved at the Concil. Africanum, A.D. 399, to make the follow- 
ing propositions to the emperors, Can. 25 (Cod. Eccl. Afric. c. 58. Mansi, iii. p. 766) : 
Ut reliquias idoloram per totum Africam jubeant penitus amputare—et templa eorum, 
quae in agris vel in locis abditis constituta nullo ornamento sunt, jubeantur omnimodo de- 
strai. Can. 27 (Cod. Afric. c. 60): Ut quoniam contra praecepta divina convivia multis in 
locis exercentur, quae ab errore gentili attracta sunt—vetari talia jubeant,ete, But there- 
upon Honorius, A.D 399, enacted two laws of an opposite character, Cod. Theodos. lib. xvi. 
tit. 10, 1.17: Ut profanos ritus jam salubri lege submovimus, ita festos conventus civium 
et communem omniuam laetitiam non patimur submoveri. L.18: Aedes, inlicitis rebus 
vacuas, nostrarum beneficio sanctionum, ne quis conetur evertere. 

18 Regarding the destraction of temples which Martin, bishop of Tours, a.p. 375-400, 
undertook, with violent opposition on the part of the heathen, see Sulpic. Severus de vita 
b. Martini, c. 13-15." In Anaunia, a valley of the Rhoetian Alps, the missionaries Sisin 


CHAP. L—STRUGGLE WITH PAGANISM. § 79. 289. 


lay the blame of all misfortune on the Christians, so since the 
west of Europe had been inundated by barbarous people, and 
even Italy had been several times devastated by such hordes, 
they were especially loud in declaring all these disasters to be 
punishments sent by the gods,’* and in predicting the speedy 
downfall of Christianity... Against these accusations the 
writings of Augustine’® and the Spanish presbyter Oro- 


nius, Martyrius, and Alexander, were horribly murdered, A.D. 397, by the heathen during 
the Pagan festival of the Ambarvalia, and the church built by them destroyed. See Acta 
SS. (ad d. 29 Maj.) Maji, t. vii. p. 38. In Suffecte, in Africa, the Christians had demol- 
ished a statue of Hercules, andthe heathen killed sixty of them for it (August. Ep. 268 
ad Suffectanos). How at Calama, in Numidia, the heathen, during one of their festivals 
in the year 408, attacked the church there, and persecuted the Christians, may be seen in 
Augustin. Ep. 202 ad Nectarium. 

18 When the Gothic king Rhadegaisus, 405, broke into Italy, the heathen said (Augus- 
tin. de civ. Dei, v. 23), quod ille diis amicis protegentibus et opitulantibus, quibus immo- 
lare quotidie ferebatur, vinci omnino non posset ab eis, qui talia diis Romanis sacra non 
facerent, nec fieri a quaoquam permitterent. When Rome was subsequently besieged by 
Alaric, 409 (Sozom. ix. 6), dvaykaioy éddxer toig éAAnvivover Tig GvyKAHtov, Ode év 
TH Kamitworiw Kal toie GAAote vaoic. And Zosimus, v. 41, asserts: ‘O 62 Ivvoxéytiog | 
TAY The moAcwg cuTyplav tumpoobev tHE oixeiag Totnoduevocg ddEyc, AdOpa edjKev 
aitoic moleivy Gxep ioacw. Comp. Beugnot, ii. 55. Zosimus, iv. 59: Tod OvqyzoAckod 
Oecuod AnsavToc, Kai Toy GAAwv, boa Tho TaTpiov mapadécews Hv, év dyedeia KeL- 
uévov, q ‘Popatov émixpdtera Kata wépog éAatTwHeica, BapBapav obkaTiptoy yéyove, 
h Kat Téheov éxrecodaa Tov. oiknTépwr eig TODTO KatéorTy OXhuaTos, Gore pinde Tov¢ 
témouc, év oic yeyévacw ai roAEL¢, ExtytvdoKeww. 

17 Many Christians believed that Christ should return 365 years after his first appear- 
ance, and the end of the world take place. Philastr. Haer. 106; Alia est haeresis de 
anno annunciato ambigens, quod ait Propheta Esaias: Annuntiare annum Dei accepta- 
bilem et diem retributionis. Putant ergo quidam, quod ex quo venit Dominus usque ad 
consummationem saeculi non plus nec minus fieri annorum numerum, nisi ecclxv. usque - 
ad Christi- Domini iterum de caelo divinam praesentiam., To this Christian expectation 
the heathen gave another application.. Augustin. de civ. Dei, xviii. 53: Excogitaverunt 
nescio quos versus Graecos tanquam consulenti cuidam divino oraculo effusos, ubi Christam 
quidem ab hujus tanquam sacrilegii crimine faciunt innocentem, Petrum autem maleficia 
fecisse subjungunt (namely, scelere magico puer, ut dicunt, anniculus occisus, et dilaniatus, 
et ritu nefario sepultus est), ut coleretur Christi nomen per ccclxy. annos, deinde completo 
memorato numero annorum sine mora sumeret finem. In the work de Promissionibus et 
Praedictionibus Dei lib. (inserted in Prosper’s works, and written by an African, about 
450), it is related, P- iii. prom. 38, how the bishop Aurelius at Carthage had converted the 
long-closed temple of Caelestis (the Phoenician Astarte) into a Christian church, which, 
however, soon after (420) had been destroyed for the purpose of obviating a, heathen 
illusion. Cum a quodam pagano falsum vaticinium, velut ejusdem Caelestis proferretur, 
quo rursum et via et templa prisco sacrorum-ritui redderentur—verus Deus—sub Con- 
stantio et Augusta Placidia, quorum nunc filius Valentinus pius et christianus imperat, 
Urso insistente tribuno, omnia illa ad solum usque perducta agrum reliquit in sepulturam 
scilicet mortuorum. 

48 Augustin. Retractat. ii. 43: Interea Roma Gothorum irruptione agentium sub rege 
Alarico, utque impetu magnae cladis eversa est, cujus eversionem deorum falsorum mul- 
torumque cultores, quos usitato nomine Paganos vocamus, in christianam religionem 
referre conantes, solito acerbius et amarius Deum verum blasphemare coeperunt. Unde 
ego exardescens zelo domus Dei, adversus eorum blasphemias vel errores libros de 


Fou. 1.—19 


290 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A-D. 324-451. 


stus'® could do but little; but they must have become dumb of 
themselves when even the German conquerors became converts 
to Christianity, and persecuted heathenism.”” Hence even Val. 
_ entinian III, (423-455), with all his powerlessness, could ap- 
pear again as a decided opponent to paganism.”’ Still it was 
kept up more or less privately amid the confusion of migrations.” 


civitate Dei scribere institui. Hoc autem de civitate Dei grande opus tandem xxii. 
libris est terminatum. Quorum quinque primi eos refellunt, qui res humanas ita pros- 
perari volunt, ut ad hoc multoram deorum cultam, quos Pagani colere consueverunt, 
necessarium esse arbitrentur: et quia prohibetur, mala ista exoriri atque abundare con- 
tendunt. Sequentes autem quinque adversus eos loquuntur, qui fatentur haec mala nec | 
defuisse unquam, nec defutura mortalibus, et ea nunc magna, nunc parva, locis, tempori- 
bus, personisque variari, sed deorum multorum cultum, quo eis sacrificatur, propter vitam 
post mortem futuram esse utilem disputant. His ergo decem libris duae istae vanae 
opiniones christianae religioni adversariae refelluntur. Sed ne quisquam nos aliena tan- 
tam redarguisse, non autem nostra asseruisse reprehenderet, id agit pars altera operis 
hujus, quae libris xii. continetur, Duodecim ergo librorum sequentium primi quatuor 
continent exortum duarum civitatum, quarum est una Dei, altera hujus mundi. Secundi 
quatuor excursum earum sive procursum. ‘Tertii vero, qui et postremi, debitos~ fines. 
Augustini de civitate Dei lib. xxii. cum commentario Jo. Lud. Vivis. Basil. 1522. fol.; 
cum. comm. Leon. Coquaei. Paris. 1636. fol.; cum comm. Vivis et Coquaei sumt.’ Zach. 
Hertelii. Hamburg. 1661.2tom.4. Jo. van Goens Disp. hist. theol. de Aurel. Augustino 
Apologeta secundum libros de civitate Dei. Amstelod. 1838. 8. 
19 Pauli Orosii adversus Paganos historiarum libb. vii. rec et illustr. Sigeb. Havercampus. 
Lugd. Bat. 1738. 4. Th. de Moerner de Orosii vita ejusque hist. libris. Berol. 1844. 8. 
20 So the Goths under Alaric at the sacking of Rome, 410 (Augustin. de civ. Dei, v. 23), 
qui—ad loca sancta confugientes, christianae religionis reverentia, tuerentur, ipsisque dae- 
monibus atque impiorum sacrificiorum ritibus—sic adversarentur pro nomine christiano, 
ut longe atrocius bellum cum eis quam cum hominibus gerere viderentur. Cf. i. 1. ; 
21 Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 63, A.D. 425: Omnes haereses omnesque perfidias, omnia schismata 
superstitionesque gentilium, omnes catholicae legis inimicos insectamur errores. It is 
+ decreed, sacrilegae superstitionis auctores, participes, conscios proscriptione plectendos. 
22 So in upper Italy Maximus Ep. Taurinensis (about 440, ed. Rom. 1784. fol.) Serm. 96, 
p- 655: Ante dies commonueram caritatem vestram, fratres, ut—idolorum omnem pollu- 
tionem de vestris possessionibus auferretis, et erueretis ex agris universum gentilium 
errorem. Nec se aliquis excusatum putet, dicens, non jussi fieri, non mandavi—tacendo 
enim, et non arguendo consensum praebuit immolanti—Tu igitur, frater, cum taum 
sacrificare rusticum cernis, nec prohibes immolare, peccas. Cum cellam ingressus fueris, 
reperies in ea pallentes cespites, mortuosque carbones. Et si ad agrum processeris, 
cernis aras ligneas et simulacra lapidea. Cum maturius vigilaveris, et videris saucium 
vino rusticum, scire debes, quoniam, sicut dicunt, aut dianaticus (a worshiper of Diana), 
aut aruspex est :—talis enim sacerdos parat se vino ad plagas deae suae, ut dum est 
ebrius poenam suam ipse non sentiat. Nam ut paulisper describamus habitum vatis 
hujusce: est ei adulterinis criniculis hirsutum caput, nuda habens pectora, pallio crura 
semicincta, et more gladiaturam—ferrum gestat in manibus, nisi quod gladiatore pejor 
est, quia ille adversus alterum dimicare cogitur, iste contra se pugnare compellitur. So 
also Maximus contra Paganos (Opp. p. 721) is directed against the still existing idolatry. 
Comp. his Sermo 77, p. 610: Principes quidem tam boni christiani leges pro religione 
promulgant, sed eas executores non exerunt competenter. In Gaul, Conc. Arelat. ii. ann. 
443, c. 23: Si in alicujus Episcopi territorio infideles aut faculas accendunt, aut arbores, 
fontes vel saxa venerantur, si hoc eruere neglexerit, sacrilegii reum se esse cognoscat: 
Here persecutions of the Christians must still have taken place once and again, for chapter 
10 contains penitence-decisions de his qui in persecutione praevaricati sunt, si voluntarie 
+ 





CHAP. 1—STRUGGLE WITH PAGANISM. § 79. 991 


Particular heathen customs, which had become of value to the 
people or had gained their superstitious confidence, were main- 
tained, notwithstanding all the conversions to Christianity.” 


fidem negaverint; and chapter 11 respecting those, qui dolore victi et pondere persect- 
tionis negare vel sacrificare compulsi sunt. In Africa: de Promiss. et Praedict. Dei libb. 
P. iii. prom. 38 (comp. above, note 17): Novi quoque ipse, in quadam parte Mauretaniae 
provinciae de spelaeis et cavernis ita antique producta simulacra, quae fuerant absconsa 
ut omnis illa cum clericis in sacrilegio perjurii civitas teneretur. In Corsica Paganism 
continued predominant, and sacrifices were publicly offered. A female Christian named 
Julia was crucified by the exasperated heathens (between 440-445), because she would 
not take part in a sacrifice. See Acta SS. Maj. viii. 167 (ad 22 Maj.). 

23 In Rome, too, such practices as had a certain political importance were kept up. 
See Salvianus (presbyter in Marseilles, about 440. Salv. et Vincent. Lir. Opp. ed. Baluzius. 
Paris. 1684. 8. Bremae. 1688. 4) de gubernatione Dei lib. vi. ed. Brem. p. 106: Numquid, 
non Consulibus et pulli adhuc gentilium sacrilegorum more pascuntur, et volantis pennae 
auguria quaeruntur, ac paene omnia fiunt, quae etiam illi quondam pagani veteres frivola 
atque irridenda duxerunt?—haec propter Consules tantum fiunt. The fights with wild 
beasts were continued, Salvianus, vi. p. 105: Nihil ferme vel criminum, vel flagitiorum 
est, quod in spectaculis non sit; ubi summum deliciaram genus est mori homines, aut, 
quod est merte gravius acerbisque, lacerari, expleri ferarum alyos humanis carnibus, 
comedi homines cum circumstantium laetitia, conspicientium voluptate—Atque ut hoc 
fiat, orbis impendium est; magna enim cura id agitur et elaboratur—Sed haec, inquis, 
non semper fiunt. Certum est, et praeclara erroris est excusatio, quia non semper fiunt! 
P. 113: Si quando evenerit,—ut eodem die et festivitas ecclesiastica et ludi publici agantur, 
quaero ab omnium conscientia, quis locus majores christianorum virorum copias habeat, 
cavea ludi publici, an atrium Dei?—Non solum ad Ecclesiam non veniunt qui Christianos 
se esse dicunt; sed si qui inscii forte venerint, dum in ipsa Ecclesia sunt, si ludos agi 
audiunt, Ecclesiam derelinquunt.—Maximus Taurin. Hom. c. p. 334: Ante dies plerosque 
—circa vesperum tanta vociferatio populi extitit, ut irreligiositas ejus penetraret ad caelum, 
Quod cum requirerem, quid sibi clamor hic velit; dixerunt mihi, quod laboranti lunae ves- 
tra vociferatio subveniret, et defectum ejus suis clamoribus adjuvaret. It was believed 
(Hom. ci, p. 337), lunam de caelo magoruam carminibus posse deduci. The heathen festival 
of the Kalendae Januariae was universally observed. Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the 
Great, and Peter Chrysologus, bishop of Ravenna, express themselves with zeal against 
it; also Maximus Hom. ciii. p. 343: Quis sapiens, qui dominici Natalis sacramentum 
colit, non ebrietatem condemnet Saturnalium, non declinet lasciviam Kalendaram ?—Sunt 
plerique, qui trahentes consuetudinem de veteri superstitione vanitatis, Kalendarum diem 
pro summa festivitate procurent—Nam ita lasciviunt, ita vino et epulis satiantur, ut qui 
toto anno castus et temperans fuerit, illa die sit temulentus atque pollutus.—Llud autem 
quale est, quod surgentes mature ad publicum cum munusculo, h. e., cum strenis unus- 
quisque. procedit, et salutaturus amicos, salutat praemio antequam osculo? caet. Most 
striking is that which Salvianus de gub. Dei viii. p. 165, writes of Africa: Quis non eorum, - 
qui Christiani appellabantur, Caelestem illam (see note 17) aut post Christum adoravit, 
aut, quod est pejus multo, ante quam Christum? Quis non daemoniacorum sacrificioram 
nidore plenus, divinae domus limen introiit, et cum foetore ipsorum daemonum Christi 
altare conscendit?—Ecce quae Afrorum, et maxime nobilissimorum, fides, quae religio, 
quae christianitas fuit!—At, inquis, non-omnes ista faciebant, sed potentissimi quiqne, 
ac sublimissimi. Adquiescamus hoc ita esse, cast. i 


292 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D. 324-451. 


SECOND CHAPTER. 


HISTORY OF THEOLOGY. 


5. Chr. F. Wandemann Gesch. d. christl. Glaubenslehren vom Zeitalter des Athanasius 
bis auf Gregor. d. G. 2 Theile. Leipz. 1798, 99. 8. Munscher’s Dogmengeschichte. 
Bd. 3, 4. ? 


§ 80. 


INTRODUCTION. 


The universally received articles of the Christian faith in 
the beginning of this period were still so simple as to admit of 
ince to reason for free inquiry. How manifold were the theo- 
logical views which arose, may be seen particularly from a 

-comparison of the different schools, the speculative Origenist, 
the traditional, and the historico-exegetical, which now first be- 
gan. Anda still greater contrast of systems might be expected 
from the inclination of the Greek Christians to speculation and 
argument,’ when external tranquillity was afforded them, after 
the cessation of persecution. 

Thus theological controversies were unavoidable, though they 
would have had none other than a salutary influence on the de- 
velopment of reason, if parties had abided by the old distinction 
‘between ziotic and yveoic with clear consciousness; and if de- 
bated questions belonging to theology had not been drawn into 
the province of religion and the church. But the very simplicity 
of the older articles of faith frequently invited the disputants to 
appeal to them in their own favor, and so to accuse their oppo- 
- nents of deviating from the faith. If the accused also wished 
to lay claim for themselves to that freedom of speculation on 
the basis of the rioric, the hierarchy, on the other hand, was a 
natural enemy to such liberty as would withdraw from its guard- 
ianship any department affecting the church, and had, of course, 
an interest in bringing all theological matters of debate from the 


¥ Cicero de Orat. i. 11: Graeculos hommes contentionis cupidiores quam yeritatis. 


* 


CHAP. Il—HISTORY OF THEOLOGY. _§ 80. INTRODUCTION. .9293 


province of theology into the province of religious faith, im order 
to be able to lay claim to the right of decision. ‘This interest 
now appeared the more reckless in proportion as opposition to the 
heathen. ceased to be a formidable thing, requiring a forbearing 
patience within the church, and in proportion as the hierarchy 
was now supported by worldly power. 
Thus religious controversies assumed at the present time a very 
different character. While they were formerly limited to particu- 
lar provinces, the whole Christian world was now divided by theo- 
logical disputes into two parties. To put an end to the division 
by a final ecclesiastical decision the emperors called general coun- 
cils (otvodor oixovpevixat), elevated their decisions into laws of 
the realm, and applied worldly power to enforce them univer- 
sally. _ In earlier times, the councils summoned against heretics 
contented themselves merely with warding off the false doctrine 
by denials; but now the general councils, feeling their ecclesi- 
astical importance, and supported by the imperial power, began 
to exalt positive decisions regarding disputed points, into eccle- 
siastical articles of faith.” Thus the development of doctrines 
proceeded more rapidly, while the field left to free speculation 
was always narrowed in proportion. On this very account, — 
too, opponents presented a much more obstinate opposition, 
and the schisms became greater and more stiffnecked.. The 
struggle had the most’ important influence on the development 
of the internal relations of the church, and was even of great 
political moment, from the circumstance of the emperors them- 
selves taking a share in it. Hence, from this time forward, the 
history of theological disputes forms the central point not only 
of the whole history of the church, but sometimes also of the 
political history of the Roman empire. 


2 Hilarius de Trinitate, ii. 1: Sufficiebat quidem credentibus Dei sermo,—cum dicit 
Dominus : Huntes nunc docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et 
Spiritus sancti, ete—Sed compellimur haereticoram et blasphemantium vitiis illicita 
agere, ardua scandere, ineffabilia eloqui, i inconcessa praesumere. Et cum sola fide ex- 
pleri quae praecepta sunt oporteret, adorare scilicet Patrem, et venerari cum eo Filium, 
sancto Spiritu abundare: cogiiur sermonis nostri humilitatem ad ea quae inenatrabilia 
sunt extendere, et in vitium vitio coaretamur alieno; ut quae contineri religione mentium 
portuisset, nunc in periculam humani eloquii proferantur. s ; 


294 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. 1—A.D. 324-452. 


IL PERIOD OF THE ARIAN DISPUTES. 


Walch’s Historie der Ketzereien, ii. 385, ff. J. A. Mohler’s Athanasius d. Grosse u. d- 
Kirche seiner Zeit, bes. im Kampfe mit dem Arianismus. 2 Th. Mainz. 1827.8. Baur’s 
Lehre von d. Dreieinigkeit u. Menschwerdung Gottes in ihrer geschichtl. Entwickelung, 

’ 4. 320. G. A. Meier’s Lehre von der Trinitat-in ihrer histor. Entwickelung, i. 134. 

’. Ritter’s Gesch. d. christ]. Philosophie, ii. 18. 


§ 84. 


BEGINNING OF THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY TO THE SYNOD OF . 
NICE (325). 


Storia critica della vita di Arrio, scritta da Gaetano Maria Travasa, Cler. Reg. Teatino. 
Venezia. 1746. 8. Der Arianismus in s. ursprungl. Bedeutung u. Richtung von L. Lange, 
in Iilgen’s Zeitschr. f. d. hist. Theol. iv. ii. 75. 


While endeavors were made in vain to reunite the Donatists 
and Meletians with the church, the progressive development of 
the doctrine of the Logos gave rise to a new controversy, which 
soon became more general and violent than any that had pre- 
ceeded it, The common doctrine of the Logos, after the expul- 
sion of the Monarchians, was, that he is the mediator of all 
Divine agency in the finite, by the will of the Father, and less 
than he. Regarding his origin, the emanistic idea had been by 
far the most general. In opposition to it, the school of Origen 
represented him as an eternal ray of the Divine glory. This 
bringing forth of the Logos outside ef the Divine essence by 
the will of the Father was still, however, a creation; and that 
this creating could not be eternal, was already perceived, when 
Dionysius of Alexandria, in opposition to Sabellius, gave greater 
prominence to the fact that the Son was created.’ But the 
emanists also took offense at this conclusion; for with them the 
Logos was eternal, though not as a person, yet still in the es- 
sence of God from whom he had proceeded. Dionysius at that 
time prevented a controversy by yielding; but now Arius, a 


> See Divis. I. § 64, notes 7, 8, § 66, note 16. The Romish Dionysius merely infers from 
the expressions of the Alexandrian the non-eternity of the Logos; the latterdenies this, a 
. proof that he did not express it as his opinion. If, however, the Logos was a creature, he 
- Was not eternal. Hence the Arians referred even to Dionysius in favor of this doctrine. 
See § 14, note 7, Athanasius de sententia Dionysii endeavors to excuse him; but Basil 
the Great, Ep. ix. 2, finds in him the germ of Arianism. 





CHAP. Il—THEOLOGY. I. ARIAN PERIOD. § 81. TILL 325. 295 


presbyter in Alexandria, who, in the school of Lucian, by a his- 
torico-exegetical training had received the love of intelligible 
clearness, wished to remove the latent contradiction in Origen’s 
doctrine, by teaching that the Logos is a created, and conse- 
quently not an eternal being. When he fell into a dispute 


2 Writings of Arius: Epist. ad Eusebium Nicomediensem ap. Epiphan. Haer. 69, § 6, 
and Theodoret. Hist: Eccl. 1, 4, Epist. Alexandrum ap. Athanasius de synodis Arim. et 
Seleuc. c. 16, and Epiphanius Haer. 69, § 7, Oadeia (fudepye TH YavvdtyTe Toig DwTddov 
dopacwv, Sozom. i. 21), not extant, except fragments in Athanasius. According to Atha- 
nasius c. Arian. Or. ii. 24, Arius, Eusebius, and Asterius, in their works, inculcated these 
sentiments respecting the creation of the world d¢ dpa OéAwv 5 Oedc tiv yevynray Ktica 
gbotv, éxecdn Edpa un Svvauévnv aityv ueTacxyeiv THC TOD TaTpOC GKpaTov (YELpoc), Kat 
Tho Tap’ airow Onutoupyiac, motet Kai KTiler TpOTw¢ wbvog uovov Eva Kai Kadi TodTov 
vidv Kai A6yov, iva tovTov uécov yevouévov obTu¢ Aorrov Kai Ta wavta de’ abrod yevéo- 
Gat dvvnfg. Arius’s own explanations, Epist. ad Euseb.: “Oru 6 vidc¢ ob« Eat dyévyn- 
Toc, ovd@ pépog GyevvATov Kat’ ovdéva Tpdrov, obde 2 troxerpévov Tivdg* GAN Ste 
Gedjuate kai Bovag inéotn mpd xpdvov Kai Tpd aldvwy TARAS OGed¢, uovoyeric, dvad- 
Aoiwroc, Kai mpiv yevynOy, Hrot KTLcO7, 7} dpioO7, 7) OeuedAwOq, obk Fv-° ayévvnTog yap 
otk Hv. dtwkdpueba, bre eimapuev, dpynv Exet 6 vide, 6 dé Oed¢g dvapydc éoti. dtd TOdTO 
StaxoueOa. Kat re eimaper, bre é§ ob« bvrwv éotiv. obtw dé eitauer, Kafrte obd2 pépor 
Geod, obd2 2 brxoxempévov Tivdc. Epist. ad Alex.: Oidayev Eva Bedv, uovov ayévyntov,— 
Tovrov Gedv yervicavta vidv povoyera mpd yodvav aiwviwyv, dv’ ob Kai Tod¢ aiGvac, Kai 
Ta Aoirad weroinke* yevvpcavta dé ob doxjcet, dAA’ dAnbecia, bxootHoavtTa dé idiw Oed7j- 
uatt, Gtpextov kai GvaAdoiwrov, kticoua Tod Geod TéAELoVv, GAN ody Oo Ev TOV KTLGUG- 
Tav, yévvnua, GAN oby wc év TOY yevrnudtor, ob8’ bc Odadrevtivog mpoBoAqy rd 
yévynua tod mwatpd¢ édoypdticer, odd’ O¢ 6 Mavixaioc pépoc duootaioy Tod matpd¢ TO 
yévenua elonyhoato, obd’ Gc LaBéAAog THY povdda d.aipdv, viordropa elrev, obd’ Og 
‘lepdxag Adyvoy axd Abxvov, } O¢ Aaurdda ei¢ dbo, odde Tov dvta TpdTEpoV, boTEpov 
yevynbévra, h exixtiabévta ei¢ vidv'—dAn’ dc gapuev, OeAjuatt Tod Geod mpd ypdvwv Kai 
mpd aidver xticGévra, Kat TO CHv Kai TO eivar mapa Tod waTpo¢ elAngdTa, Kai Ta¢ défa¢ 
ouvuTootycavtog avtT@ Tod watpdc. od yap 6 raTHp, dode abTH TavTav THY KAnpovo- 
piav, éorépnoev éavtov, Gv dyevvAtac exer dv éavTo. cyyH yap éott KdvTwv. “QoTe 
tpetc elary droardcetc, Kai 6 ev Ged¢ aitiog Tév TavTwY Tvyxavar, EcTiv Evapyoc 
povaétatoc. 6 d2 vlic dxpévuac¢ yevvnbeic ixd Tod waTpd¢, Kai Tpd aldvwer KTLCbele Kai 
BepertwOeic, obk Hv mpd TOD yevvynORvat’ oid? ydp éotwv didtoc, } ovvatd.oc, 7 ovvayév- 
vnto¢e TO maTpi.—el Jé Td EF abrod, kai 76 éx yaotpéc¢, Kai TO 2x TOD maTpd¢ EEHAOOY Kai 
kw, O¢ pepo abTod buoovctor, Kai Oe TpoBoAH bx6 Tivwv voeirat, cbdvOeTog ~orar'd Ta- 
Tip Kai dtaipetoc, Kai TpeT Tc, Kai cGua Kat’ abrovc, Kai Td boov én’ abroic TA axdAovOa 
odéuate Tacxor; 6 dcduaroc Ge6c¢. From the Thaleia ‘ap. Athanas. contra Arianos, Orat. 
ii. cc. 9): Ovx det 6 Bede matHp Hv, GAM borepov yéyovev. ok dei Tv 6 vidg, ob yaép qv, 
mplv yevvnbj. obk éotiv éx Tod maTpodc, GAN’ && odk SvTwv inréoty Kal abrég. ob« éoTLv 
toc tii¢ Tod TaTpodc¢ obciac, KTicowa ydp éott Kat roinua. -Kai ob Eotiv GAnOivo¢ Bede 6 
Xpioric, GAAG peroy@ Kai abtig &OcororhOn* obk oide Tov watépa axptBG¢ 6 vlog, obTe 
6p & Adyo¢g Tov marépa Tedeiwc, Kal odTEe oVvVLE:, ObTE ywWdoKet aKpLIG¢ 6 Adyog TOP — 
marépa’ ob totiv 5 dAnOiwoe cal povog abtig Tod raTpi¢ Abyoc, GAA’ dvéuate pdvor 
Aéyetat Adyoo Kal codgia, Kal ydpite Aéyerat vide Kal Sivapic’ obK ~oTiv GtpEeTKTog, Ge 
6 maThp, GAAG tpextéc tote dbael, Oc TA KTiowata, Kai Aimer aiTH el¢ KaTadAmp 
TOD yvOvae Teleiwe Tov matépa. When the Son is sometimes called rperré¢, sometimes 
atpentog, that is explained by a preceding fragment (Orat. ii. c. 5): Tj pév gvoet, 
Goneo wévtec, obra Kal abtoc & Adyoc éote tperTic, TO de idiw abregovciy, Buc 
Bobderar, péver waréc. bre pévtor OéAe1, dbvatat tpéxecBat Kai adtoc, Gomep Kat 
quctc, Tpexthe Ov dbcewe. Ad rodto ydp, onot, Kai xpoyivdcKwv 6 Ged EcecGa 


296 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D. 324-451. 


with his bishop Alexander on the point (318), who excluded 
him and his followers from chureh-fellowship, many bishops in 
Syria and Asia Minor declared themselves in favor of Arius; 
some, especially Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia (SvAAoveraviord, 
Arius ad Euseb. ap. Theodoret. i. 4, see above, § 65, note 5), 
because they adopted his views; others, as Eusebius, bishop of 
Caesarea,*® because they held that the faith of the church was 
at least not violated by the doctrine of Arius. The most im- 
portant writer who endeavored to defend the Arian principles 
was the sophist Astertws of Cappadocia, also a disciple of Lu- 
cian (f about 330). Thus the controversy communicated 
itself to the whole east. After Constantine had in vain en- 
deavored to induce the contending parties to give up the dispute, 
by rational representations,’ he called the first oecumenical 
council at Nice (325). As the number of Arian bishops was 
much smaller than that of their opponents, the party of Alex- 
ander prevailed, their cause being pleaded by Athanasius, deacon 
in Alexandria, and Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra. The Arian 
doctrine was rejected; but the ancient emanistic notion was 
confirmed, and was merely developed farther by the decision 


kadov abtov, rpoAaBov tairnv aité tiv ddgav dédwxev, Hv-d dy nai éx tig apetig taxe 
usta, TADTA. 

3 Comp. the fragment of his letter to Alexander, bishop of Alexandfia; in the Acts of 
the Cone. Nicaeni ii. ann. 787. Actio vi. ap. Mansi, xiii. p. 316. 

+ Fragments of his ciyrayya in Athanasius. 

5 Epist. Constantini ad Alexandrum et Arium in Eusebii vit. Const. ii. 64-72. Among 
other things we find, c. 69: Oire ipwrdv trip THv ToLobrwv & apyie mpooHKov Fv, odre 
épwradpevoy axokpivecOat. Tac yap Torabtac Cythoetc, bxécac pH vdpov Tivd¢e dvayKn 
mpootdtrel, Grd’ dvwgedove apyiacg épecyedia npooribyaw, ei Kai ovoikig Tivdeg yupva- 
ciacg évexa yiyvotto, duwe ddethoper cicw tie Stavoiac éyxAsiew, Kai py mpoxeipar eic 
Onuociac cvvidoue éxdépety, und? Taig Tov Onuav dKoai¢ dxpovéntw¢ micTebew.—C. 70: 
Avérep Kal épotnotg GxpopbAakroc, kai dréxptoig ampovdnror ionv chan hac avTi6To- 
cav é@’ éxatépw ovyyvauny. —C. 71: Kai Aéyo Tatra, oby Oc dvaykalov ide édrav- 
Tog 7H Riav ebmbet, Kai ota oy moté tori éxelvn j CiTnoLe, ovvribecba. dtvara yap 
Kai TO THE ovvddov Titov tyiv dKxepaiw¢ cbfecbat, Kai pia Kal i) abtTy Kata TrévToY 
Kowwovia Typeicbat, Kav Ta paddtoTad tic év wéper mpde GAAHAOVE byiv imép éeXayiorov 
Stagwvia yévntat: 

6 According to Eusebius de vita Constantini, this council numbered more than 250 
bishops. In later times 318 were usually reckoned to it, and it was called the council of 
Tuy’. ‘The first persons who have the latter number expressly refer to the 318 servants ot 
Abraham, in whom Barnabas, so early as his day, had found a prediction relating to 
Christ, c. 9, Hilary de Synodis, c. 86: Et mihi quidem ipse ile numerus hic sanctus est, 
in quo Abraham victor regum impiorum ab eo, qui aeterni sacerdotii est forma, benedici- 
tur. Liberius ap. Socrat. iy.2. Ambrosius de Fide, lib. i. prolog. § 5. Doubtless this 
sacred number was arbitrarily assumed for the purpose of conferring honor on the council 
of the Nicenes. Gelasius, however, Hist. Conc. Nic. and an anonymous author in the 
Spicilegium Romanum, t, vi. (Romae. 1841. 8.) p. 608, give the number 300. 





CHAP. IL—THEOLOGY. I. ARIAN PERIOD. §81. TILL 325. 997 


that the Son is of the same essence with the Father (éwootav0¢ 
7@ tatpt).’ ‘This expression, which had been till now regarded 
as Sabellian, was very suspicious in the eyes of the oriental 
bishops.* The most of them, however, yielded to the imperial 
authority, and subscribed the new creed.? None but the two 
Egyptian bishops Theonas and Secundus refused, who were 
therefore banished with Arius to Illyria. The Nicene decrees 
were universally proclaimed as imperial law; and when the 
bishops Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nice, de- 
parted from them, they were sent into exile to Gaul (325). 


7 The history of the Nicene Synod, written by Maruthas, bishop of Tagrit in Mesopota- 
mia, at the end of the fourth century (see Assemani Bibl. Orient. t. i. p. 195), is no longer 
extant. Gelasii Cyziceni (bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, about 476) obvraypa TOV 
Kata tHv év Nixaia dyiav otvodov mpaxbévtav, libb. 3 (the third lost), prim. ed. Rob. 
Balforeus Scotus. Paris..1600. 8,/also in the collection of the decrees of Councils ap. 
Mansi, ii. p. 759, (translated in Fuchs, i. 416).—Th. Ittigii Historia Concilii Nicaeni (ed. 
Christianus Ludovici). Lips. 1712.4. Fuchs Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen des 
vierten u. fanften Jabrh. i. 350—Symbolum Nicaenum (cf. Chr. G. F, Walchii Bibliotheca 
symbolica vetus. Lemgov. 1770. 8, p. 75, ss.): Ilioretoyev cig Eva Oedv, marépa rav- 
ToKpétopa, TavTwy Opatay Te Kai Gopatwv roinTHv. Kai eic &va kipiov ’Incotv Xpic- 
Tov, Tov vidv Tov Geod, yevvnbévta éx Tod TaTpd¢ Uovoyer#, TOUTEéGTLV, éx THE obciac 
Tod maTpoc, Gedv éx Geod, Gc Ex GwTd¢, Dedv GANOivdv Ex Beod GAnOwwod, yevynbérTa, 
ov moinbévta, 6uoovo.ov tH rarpi. di’ 0b Ta névTa tyéveTo, Ta Te *év TO Cdpav@ Kal 
Ta év tH yQ. Tov dv Hud Tove GvOparove Kai Jia THY juetépav cwtnplay cateAGovta 
Kai capkwbévra, kai evavOpwrqoavra, ma0ovta Kat dvactdéyta 7H tpity ipépg, Gven- - 
Gévra cic Tove ovpavotc, Kai Epxduevov Kpivat Savrag kai vexpovc. Kai eic¢ rd dytov 
mvevua. Tove 68 Aéyovtac, 574 Hv ote Ste odK iy, Kat amply yevenGivat ovK HY; Kal 
' 6re && otk évtwv tyéveto, 7 &§ étépag broctdcews  ovciag ddoKovtac eivat, # KTLG- 
' Tov, TpETTOV, 7) GALoLwroV Tov vidv Tod Peod, dvabepaTifer 7 KAaOOAiKH ExKAnoia. Con- 

cerning the composition of this creed: Athanasius Epist.de decretis synodi Nicaenae, and 
Eusebii Caesar. Epist. ad Caesarienses, most complete as appended to Athanasii Epist. 
cit, and in Theodoreti H. E.i.11. The ei¢ Ged¢ is here the Father alone, consequently 
the sameness of essence between Him and the Son is not a numerical unity of essence. 
See Minscher uber den Sinn der Nic. Glaubensformel, in Henke’s neuem Magazin, vi. 
334. Even here the sentiment, that the Son exists by the will of the Father, and is less 
than he, is not spoken against. 

_§ See Divis. I. § 60, note 13. 

® How actively Constantine employed his influence in accomplishing it may be seen in 

Eusebius vita Const. iii. 13. Since his view had previously been different (see note 5), 
and his great object was simply the restoration of peace, Gfrérer’s (K. G. ii. i. 210) con 
jecture is not improbable that he had been gained over by Hosius, and the latter during 
his abode at Alexandria; consequently the epithet ézootecoc was of Alexandrian origins 


bis where it had been already set forth in opposition to Dionysius (Div. I. § 64, note 8), and 


bad been again rejected expressly by Arius. (See above, note 2.) 





298 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L.—A.D. 324-451. 


§ 82. 


29 tots OF THE EUSEBIANS TO THE NICENE COUNCIL TILL THE 
SECOND SYNOD AT SIRMIUM (357). 


H. J. Wetzer, Restitutio verae chronologiae rerum ex controversiis Arianis inde ab annu 
. 325 usque ad annum 350 exortarum. YF rancof. ad M. 1827. 8. 


The opponents of Arianism declared it to be polytheism. On 
the contrary, the Arians charged the éuoovero¢ with Sabellianism,” 
and succeeded in spreading this view in the east so generally 
that Constantine thought he could effect a general union on the 
disputed dogma only by giving up the expression. Accordingly, 
the banished were recalled, not only Eusebius and Theognis, 
but Arius too (328-29) his orthodoxy being acknowledged by 
the emperor, as expressed in general terms, in a confession of faith 
which he gave in. Eusebius of Nicomedia obtained a decided 
influence over Constantine. Several bishops who obstinately 
adhered to the Nicene decrees, and refused to hold church com- 
Mmunion with the recalled, were banished, particularly Hwsta- 
thius, bishop of Antioch (330). Athanasius himself, now 
bishop of Alexandria, was deposed by a council held at Tyre 
(335), and banished into Gaul by Constantine ; and Arius, im- 
mediately after, was solemnly received again into church com- 
munion at Jerusalem. He died not long after at Constantino- 
ple (336). Thus the east was separated from the western 
church; the latter adopting the dyuooto10c, and espousing the 
cause of Athanasius, which the former rejected. This division 
continued after the death of Constantine (¢ 337), when Con- 


1 Socrates, i. 24: Of wév tod duoovciov trav Aéswv éexxdivovtes THY DaBedrAiov kai 
Movravod ddgav elonyeicbat abtyy Toic mpocdeyouévouc évbpucvov, kai did TodTO BAac- 
gjpove éxdhovv, O¢ dvatpodyvTac THY traps Tod viod Tod Oeod. of 62 TaALY TH duoov- 
oiw mpookeipevol, woAvGeiar elodyeww Tove érépove vomilovTec, O¢ ‘EAAnvicpov elodyov- 
tac éSetpéxovto. Augustin. Opus imperf. v.25: Ariani Catholicos Sabellianos vocant. 
On the other hand, Athanasius Expos. fidei (ed. Ben. i. 100): Oire yap vionéropa $pov- 
over, Oc of LaBéAAror, A€yovrTes wovootoiov Kai oby duoobe.oy, Kal év ToiTw dvat- 
povvrec TO elvat vidv. So far as the Nicenes also explained duootc.0¢ by ravrootatoc, 
as Theodoret. Dial. v. in fine (cf conc. Ancyr. below, § 83, note 5), they strengthened the 
suspicion of Sabellianism. 

2 Socrates, i. 24. Sozom. ii. 19. Theodoret. i. 21. Athanasius Hist. Arian. § 4, cf 
Busebius de vita Const. iii. 59, ss. 

3 On the death of Arius see Walch’s Ketzerhist, Th. 2. S, 500-511. 


CHAP. I.—THEOLOGY. I. ARIAN PERIOD. § 82. 399 


stans had become sovereign of the west, and Constantius of the 
east, and that all the more readily, inasmuch as Eusebius, 
bishop of Nicomedia, gained the same influence over Constantius 
as he had formerly over Constantine, and was appointed bishop 
of Constantinople (338). The prevailing doctrine of the east 
respecting the Son was the old emanistic doctrine,* as had been 
set forth at the council of Antioch (341), according to which 
both the Arian formulae and the Nicene dyootc10c were looked 
upon as objectionable extremes.° The Arians, of whom there 


* The confession of faith of the first council at Antioch is thus prefaced (ap. Socrat. ii. 
10): ‘Hyueic odre axdAovGor ’Apsiov yeyévapyer (nc yap éxicxoros byte dxodovOjcopev 
TpecButépy ;) ovTe GAAnv tivd miotiv mapa tH &F dpyne éxteGeioay édeSdueBa. All 
the four Antiochian formulae in Athanasius de Synodis, § 22-25. Cf. Walch Bibl. symbol. 
p- 109, ss. Fuchs Biblioth. d. Kirchenvers. ii. 76. In the formula Antiochena i. we read: 
Ei¢ &va vidv rod Geod povoyera, mpd mévTwv tév aldvev brdpyovta Kai cuvévTa TO 
yeyevenkéte abtov rarpl, db’ od Ta mavta éyévero, k.T. A. In the formula Ant. ii.: Ele 
&va Ktbptov "Incotv Xpicrov, tov vidv airod, rav povoyer7A Oedv, dv ob Ta mavTa, TOY 
yevvnlévta mpd TOV aidvwr éx Tob maTpic, Gedv Ex Geod, bAov 2F b20v, udvov éx pdvou, - 
TéAeov éx Tedeiov, Bacthéa éx Bactdéwe, kiptov éx Kupiov, Adyov COvtTa, codiav CHcar, 
oG¢ GAnOivor, bdr, GARGetav, dvdoracw, Tomméva, Bipav, dtperrév Te Kai GvadrAoiwtory 
tiie Oedrynroc, obciacg te Kai BovAe, kal duvdyewg cali dén¢ Tov maTpdc anapd2AaKTov 
eixéva’ Tov TpwTOTOKoy Tdane THE KTicEews, Tov byTa év dpyH Tpde Tdv Bedv, Hedv Aéyor, 
Kata 76 eipnuévov év TO ebayyediw’ “Kai Ged¢ Hv 6 Abyoc.” dv’ od Ta TavTa éyéveTo, Kai 
éy 6 Ta révta ovvéotynce’ tov én’ goxdtav. tv HuepGv KateAObvta dvwbev. el Tig Tapa 
thy by TOV ypagav dpOyv micti diddoKet, Aéyav, 7 Xpdvov, } Katpov, } aidva 7 elvat, 
h yeyovévar xpd Tov yevynOjvac Tov vidv, dvabeua éotw Kai et Tic Aéyet Tov vidv KTiaua 
Oc év TOY KTLouaTur, 7 yévynua Oc Ev Tv yevynudtur, } Toinua O¢ Ev TGV TonudéTaY— 
avd0cua gota. In the formula Ant. iii. (Theophronii Episc. Tyanensis): Eic tov vidy 
abvrov Tov povoysra, Gedy Adyov, dévauty Kai codiar, Tov KbpLov Rudy "Incody Xpiotév, 
Ov ob Ta navTa, Tov yevvnGévta éx Tod TaTpd¢ Tpd TOV aldvarv, Hedy TéXeLov Ex Oeod 
teAsiov, kal 6vta mpd¢ Tov Gedy év brocrdcet, én’ éoxdTwv dé TOV huepdv KatedOovTa. 
Ei dé tig rapa tabtyy THY Tiotiv diddoxer, } exer bv FavTo, dvdbeua ~otw. Kai MapxKé?- 
Aov Tod ’Ayktpac, 7 SaBerAtov, 7 WataAov rod Yapooaréwe; dvdSeua éotw kai aitoc, cai 
mavtec of KotvavowvTec abt}. In the formula iv. (sent to Constans in Gaul some months 
after the council): Elie tov povoyer# abtod vidv, tov Kiptov judy "Incodv Xpioréy, tov 
mpd TavTwr Tov aidvav éx Tod maTpic yevunbévTa, Dedv éx eod, d¢ ék GwTic, dV ob 
éyéveto Ta Tavta év Toi¢ obpavoic Kai éxi tie yHo, TA SpaTa Kai Ta GdparTa, Ad6yov byTa 
Kal codiar, kai divauiv, kai Cav, kat o¢ GAnbivdv. Todc dé Aéyovtac && obk bvTwy Tov 
vidv 7 && érépac troordceac, Kai uy éx Ocod, Kat HY moTe ypdvoc Ste obK HV, dAXOTpPioVE 
oldev 7 KaboAtkyn éxxAnoia. According to Sozomen, iii. 5 (where only two Antiochian 
- formulae are mentioned), the second was given out as the Symb. Luciani Martyris (Div. I. 
_ $65, note 6); and from Theodoret it is clear that this is the still so-called formula Antioch, 
ii. Athanasius, Hilary, and Socrates, who give the formulae, say nothing of it. The 
anathema at the end is therefore a later addition. 

5 Comp. Eusebius de Fide adv. Sabellium (in Sirmondi Opp. 1. a. Bibl. PP. rails iv.) 
written according to Philo iiber die Schriften des Euseb. v. Alex. u. Euseb. v. Emisa. 
Halle. 1832. S. 64,76, by Eusebius of Emisa (4.D. 341), ap. Sirmond. i. 11: Confitere ea, 
quae de Patre et Filio scripta sunt, et noli curiosius ea, quae non sunt scripta, requirere. 
Utinam autem solam legeremus! utinam solis scripturis contenti essemus! et lis nulla 
fiebat. Cf. p. 18, 20,27. Comp. Cyrillus Hierosolym. in his catacheses held about the 
year 348, ex Gr, Catech. ad Competentes, xv.§ 9: Nov d2 éotsy 4 dxoatacia. dxéotycav 


300 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 324-451. 


were certainly many, must have concealed their peculiar senti- 
ments behind emanistic formulae. ‘Thus the Orientals were 
unjustly styled Arians by the Nicenes. More appropriate was 
the title Lusebians,’ from their head Eusebius, bishop of Nico-. 
-media. In order to remove the schism between the east and 
west, Constantius and Constans united in summoning a new 
general council at Sardica (347).’ But here the matter went 
so far as to issue in an entire separation. ‘The westerns re- 
mained alone in Sardica; the orientals assembled in the neigh- 
boring town Philippopolis.. Both parties confirmed their former 
acts; and in the east Eusebianism continued as prevalent under 
Constantius as the Nicene faith in the west under Constans. 
The prejudice of the Eusebians, that Homousianism led to 

Sabellianism,’ was not a little favored by the case of Marcellus, 
bishop of Ancyra, one of the principal defenders of the Nicene 
council. By representing the Logos as the eternal wisdom of 
God, and contending that the incarnate Logos alone could be 
called Son of God, this bishop manifestly came near Sabellian- 
ism ; and when deposed from his office (336), was nevertheless 
declared orthodox by the westerns, and taken under their pro- 
tection.*° A pupil of Marcellus, Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, 


yap of GvOparor tig bpOne micTews: Kai of wiv vloraropiay KatayyéAAovaty, of d2 Tov 
Xpiorov &§ ob bvtav eic¢ Td elvar mapevexbévta A€yew ToAudor. Kai mpdtepov ev 
joav gavepol of alperixol, viv d& menAfpwtar  éxxAgoia Kexpuupévwv ailpetixar. 
Compare Touttée on this passage, and his Diss. i. cap, 4, § 17, ss., prefixed to his edition 
of Cyril. 

8 Respecting the 6edv é« @eod in the Antiochian formulae they said (Socrat. ii. 45): 
Otrwc eipntar To é« Oeod, O¢ sipytat. mapa TO ’ATOOTOAM’ Ta dé mdvTa éx TOD Beod (1 
Cor. xi..12). Only the Nicene é« tij¢ obciag rod Ocod was not susceptible of an Arian 
import. 

7 So Athanasius frequently of wep? EiaéBuov. 

8 That it was held in 347, not 344, is proved by Wetzer Restit. verae chron. p. 47, against 
Mansi Coll, conc. iii. 87. 

9 Even Hilarius de Synodis § 67, confesses: Multi ex nobis ita unam substantiam 
Patris et Filii praedicant, ut videri possint non, magis id pie quam impie praedicare: 
habet. enim hoe verbum in se et fidei conscientiam, et fraudem paratam.—Unum, in quo 
par significatur, non ad unicum vendicetur. 

10 Marcellus’s chief work was de Subjectione domini Christi. (Fragments of it in 
Marcelliana ed: et animadvers. instruxit Chr. H. G. Rettberg. Goett. 1794. 8). He was 
answered by Asterius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Acacius (fragments in Epiphanius Haer, 72, 
§ 5-9), Apollinarius and Basil of Ancyra. Of these are extant only Eusebii contra Mar- 
cellum libb. ii. and de Ecclesiast. theologia libb. iii. (both appended to Eusebii Demonstr. 
evang. Paris. 1828. fol.) His orthodoxy was acknowledged by Julius, bishop of Rome 
{epist. ad Episcop. Eusebianos Antiochiae congregatos, in Athanasii Apol. contra Arianos, 
n. 21-35), Athanasius in several passages, and the Synod of Sardica. On the contrary, 
the later catholic fathers,.Basil the Great, Chrysostom, Sulpicius Severus, and others, 
judged of him unfavorably. The majority of the moderns, Baronius, Petavius, Schelstrate, 


CHAP. Il—THEOLOGY. I. ARIAN PERIOD. ¢ 832. 801 


taught Sabellianism in a fully developed form. His doctrine 
was rejected not only by the Eusebians at the second counctl . 
of Antioch (345), but also by the westerns at a council at 
Milan (347) ;-and at the first council of Strmium (351),'* he 
was deposed by the Eusebians. .The party of the Photinians 
continued, however, till the reign of Theodosius the younger. 

In the mean time, Constans had died (850). Constantius be- 
eame master of the whole Roman empire, after his victory over 
Magnentius (353), and now endeavored to introduce Eusebianism 
by force into the west also. At the synods of Arles (353) and — 
Milan (355), the bishops were forced to subscribe the condemna- 
tion of Athanasius ; all who refused being deposed and banished. 
Among these were Lucifer, bishop of Calais’ ; Hilary, Pyne of 
Poictiers ; and Lzberius, bishop of Rome. 


&c., hold him also to be a heretic. His most important defender is:Montfaucon Diatr. de 
causa Marcelli Ancyrani (in ej. Collect. nova Patrum, t. ii. p. 51,.ss.. Paris. 1706. fol. ; re- 
printed in J. Vogt Biblioth. hist. haeresiologiae, t. i. fase. ii. p. 293, ss. Hamb. 1724. 8). 
Comp. Walch’s Ketzerhist. iii. 229. Klose’s Gesch. u. Lehre des Marcellus u. Photinus. 
Hamburg. 1837. 8. Baur’s Lebre v. d, Dreieinigkeit, i. 525. ‘ 

11 Walch, iii. 3. Klose and Baur, l. c. 

12 Inthe formala Antioch. paxpdoreyxoe (ap. Athanasius de Synodis § 2 26, and Socrates 
ii. 19, cf. Walchii Bibl. symb. p. 115): BdeAvocducba 68 pic TobTo1g Kai dvabeuarivopev 
Kal Tov¢ Adyov piv povov adrov yuAdv Tod Ocod Kai dvirapKTov éemimAdoTuc KadodvTag, 
bv érépw 70 elvar éyovTa, viv pév O¢ Tov mpogdoptKdy Aeyopevoy b76 Tivar, viv dF OG TOV 
évduaerov: Xprorov 62 abrov kal vidv Tod Beod Kai weoitny Kai eixdva Tod Bod pH eivat 
apo aidvor Oédovtag, GAN’ ExtoTe Xpioroyv abriv yeyovévat Kai vidv Tod Oeod, 2 ov THV 
juetépav éx the wapbévov odpKa dveiAnde, KPO TeTPAKOGinY Ody bAwy éETdv. ExTOTE yap 
Tov Xprotrov apxnv Baorretac toxnkévac eOéXovoL? Kai TéAOg Efety adtHY weTa THY CLYTE- 
Aerav Kai tH Kptow. "Towotror dé elow of dd MapkéAdov kai Prevod (Athan. 
Lkorevod) Tov *AyKvpoyadatay, -ot tiv poatdviov srapsiy tod Xpiotod Kai tHv 
Oedrnra Kai thy GredebtynTov abrod Baorreiav duolwe "lovdaiore GbeTobow, emi mpoddoet - 
tod ovvicracba: Soxeiv TH wovapyig. 

18 Baronius placed the first Sirmian Synod in the year 357. On the other hand, 
. Petavius (in Annot. ad Epiphan. p. 300 and Diss. de Photino haeretico ejusque damna- 
tione, annexed to the third edition of the Rationar. temp. Par. 1636) correctly in the year 
351. See his controversy on the subject with Sirmond, who defended Baronius. Petavius © 
has been followed by Matth. Lorroquanus (de la Roque) Diss. duplex. i. de Photino haeret. — 

ii. de Liberio Pontif. Rom. Genev. 1670. 8. P. de Marca de tempore syn. Sirm. in his 
_ dissertatt. ed. Francof. p. 319. Pagi and Tillemont. Mansi, on the contrary, in the 
treatise before cited (note 8), places the Sirmian Council in the year 358. The confession 
of faith of the first Sirmian Synod (ap. Athanas. de Syn. § 27) is the formula Antioch iy., 
to which, however, instead of one, twenty-seven anathemas are appended. Of these, 
- Nos. 4-22 are directed against Photinus.’ Among other things, No. vi. says: El tig ty 
obciay Tod Oeod mAativecbar } ovoTéAAecOar ddoKol, dvddeua ~oTw. vii.: Et tig 
_ Thatovouevyny tiv oboiav tot Oeod Tov vidv A€éyor Tocelv, } Tov TAaTVOMdY THC obciacg 
abrod vidv dvoudtor, &. & viii.: El tec évdidBerov } mpogopiKdv Adyov Aéyot Tov vio 
tod Beod, a. &. 

u4 Many others, both those who were banished and those who yialaea’ are named in 
Faustini et Marcellini Libellus precum ad Impp. in Bibl. pp. Lugd. v. 654. 


302 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. 1.—A.D. 324-451. 


§ 83. 


“DISSENSIONS AMONG THE EUSEBIANS TILL THE SUPPRESSION OF — 
ARIANISM (381). 


After the Eusebians had become the predominant party, and 
those who were internally separated were no longer held together 
by the necessity of contending together against the Homousiasts, 
the variety of their opinions, which had been hitherto concealed, 
began to appear. A strict Arian party came forth among them, 
which was named sometimes after its leaders, Aetiws of Antioch 
(aOeoc),' Eunomius of Cappadocia,’ and Acacius, bishop of Cae- 
sarea ; sometimes from its principles (’Avéyoro, "EZovnéytvo1).° 
_ In opposition to it, the majority, under the leadership of Basil, 
bishop of Ancyra, and Georgius, bishop of Laodicea, held fast 
by the old emanistic doctrine, adopted the farther develop- 
ment of it which had formerly appeared among the Eusebians, 
viz., that the Son is of similar essence with the Father (éyo.00- 
sio¢ 7@ Tarpi), and were hence called ‘Owoovoréorat, ‘Hywdperor, 
Semiariani. ‘The emperor Constantius was attached to the 
Semiarians ;. but a powerful party about his court exerted them- 
selves with no less cunning than perseverance in favor of the 
Anomoeans. And because they could not publicly vindicate 
their formula, they persuaded the emperor that in order to re- 
store peace, the formulas of the two other parties also must be 
prohibited ; which measure they brought about at the second 


1 A cuvtaypdtiov by him may be found in Epiphan. Haer. Ixxvi. 10. -Other fragments 
in A. Maji Script. vett. nova collectio, vii. i. 71, s. 202. Respecting him and Eunomius 
see Select Homilies of John Chrysostom, translated into German by Ph. Mayer. Niirn- 
berg. 1820. p. 147. Lange in Illgen’s Zeitschr. f. d. hist. Theol. v. i. 33. Baur’s Dreiein- 
igkeit, i. 361. ; 

2 Concerning him see Basnage in Canisii Lectiones antt. vol. i. p. 172, ss. Ullmanns 
Gregorius v. Nazianz. 8. 318. ff. Neander’s Kirchengesch. ii. 2, 852, ff. Mayer, Lange, 
and Baur, see note 1. Klose’s Gesch. u. Lehre des Eunomius. Kiel. 1833. 8. His 
éxOeowe tie TicTewe prim. ed. H. Valesius in notis ad Socrat. y. 10 ap. Basnage, 1. c., and 
in Fabricii Bibl. gr. vol. viii. p. 253. "AmoAoynrixéc e cod. Hamburg. prim ed. Fabricius, 
1. c. viii. 262 (prologus and epilogus e cod. Tenisoniano also in Cave Hist. lit. i. 220).-_A 
fragment éx rod epi viod rpirov Aéyov ap. Majus, vii. i. 202. 

* According to the church-fathers, these Arians rested for support particularly on the 
Aristotelian philosophy. So also Baur, i. 387. Of a contrary opinion is Ritter Geseh. d. 
christl. Philos. ii. 65, who denies emphatically that Eunomius was an Aristotelian: 


CHAP. 1L~THEOLOGY. I. ARTAN PPRIOD. § 83, - 303 


synod of Sirmium (357).* - On the other hand, Basil, bishop 
of Ancyra, called together a synod at Ancyra (358), which es. 
tablished the Semiarian creed in a copious decree, and rejected 
the Arian.’ Constantius allowed himself to be easily convinced 
that that Sirmian formula favored the Anomoeans; and there- 
fore the confession of faith adopted at the second must now be 
rejected at a third synod of Sirmium (358), and the anathemas 
of the synod of Ancyra be subscribed.6 The Anomoeans, for - 


+ Formula Sirmiensis ii. (in the Latin original ap. Hilarius de Synodis § 11, translated 
into Greek, Athanas. de Synod. § 28.. Walch. Bibl. symb. p. 133, comp. Fuchs, ii. 196) : 
Unum constat Deum esse omnipotentem et patrem, sicut per universum orbem creditur, 
et unicum filium ejus Jesum Christum, dominum salvatorem nostrum, ex ipso ante saecula 
genitam. Quod vero quosdam aut multos movebat de substantia, quae graece usia adpel- 
latur, id est, ut_expressius intelligatur, homousion aut quod dicitur homoeusion, nullam 
omnino fieri oportere mentionem, nec quemquam praedicare: ea de causa ét ratione, 
quod nec in divinis scripturis contineatur, et quod super hominis scientiam sit, nec 
quisquam possit nativitatem filii enarrare, de quo scriptum est: generationem ejus quis 
enarrabit? . Scire autem manifestum est solum patrem, quomodo genuerit filiam suum, et 
filium, quomodo genitus sit a patre. Nulla ambiguitas est, majorem esse patrem. Nulli 
potest dubium esse, patrem honore, dignitate, claritate, majestate et ipso nomine patris 

. majorem esse- filio, ipso testante: qui me. misit, majore me est. Et hoc catholicum 
esse, nemo ignorat, duas personas esse patris et filii, majorem patrem: filium subjectum 
cum omnibus his, quae ipsi pater subjecit. Patrem initium non habere, invisibilem 
esse, immortalem esse, impassibilem esse. Filium autem natum esse ex patre, deum ex 
deo, lumen ex lumine. Cujus filii generationem, ut ante dictum est, neminem scire, nisi 
patrem suum, caet. 

5 The decrees of this Synod ap. Epiphan. Haer. 73, § 2-11. Comp. Fuchs, ii. 213. §9: 
'Q¢ év bpotduate GvOpérar, Kai év duotouate capkde duaptiac, ob« éxt THY TavTéTyTA 
Hyeto Tob dvOpdrov, GAN éxi tHY The aakpoc obciac duotdTyTa’ obTa¢ ObdE 6 Vid¢, BuoLtoc 
Kar’ ovolav yevousvoc TH yevvhoavte carpi, ei Tavtétyta Géer Tod waTpoc THY EavTOD 
obciav, GAM’ éxi thy duotdtyra.. §10: Kal et tip—py—tav duordtyta Kai Kar’ obciay 
Tod viod mpoc warépa duodoyoin, o¢ pevduvipwc Aéywv Tév watépa Kai Tov vidy, Kal 
pyre marépa Aéywov GAnbd¢ pte vidv, AAG KTioTHY Kai Kriopa—dvdbeua Eotw. § 11: 
Kai ef tig 7O extisé we, Kal 76 yevvd pe rap’ abtot dKovwv, Td yervd we yy ext Tod 
abtod kai kav’ obciav évvosi, GAAG Tadrbv Aéyot TO yevvE ust éextioé me, Oc pH Aéywv 
tov vidv Tov dnabdc TéAeioy éx THv Sto dvoudtwr, Tod éxtioé pe Kal TOU yevre ue, 
Ktiowa pwévov duohoyOv Kai unkéte vidv, we wapadéduxev 7 codia x THv dbo eiceBGc THY 
évvotav, a. é Katl-el ti¢ tod viob tiv pev nar’ obciav mpoc Tov éavtod watépa duotdrynTa 
jyuiv droxaronrovros, dv’ Ov ono’ Gorep yap 6 maTHp Gun eye ev Eavt@, obta¢ Kai TH 
vid Edwxe Conv éxeww év éaut® (Joh. v. 26)* Hv dé Kar’ évépyevar, Ov Gv wadeber* a yap 

dvb xathp Tog, Taira Kai 6 vide duoiwe moet (Joh. v. 19), pévgv tHY Kat’ évépyerav 
Ouoldrnta diode, Tic Kat’ otciay, H éoTe TO KedakaiwdécTaToY HuGVY THe TlioTEws, dIoO- 
orepoin Tov vidv—d. é. (so according to a correction). Ei tig—dvdyotov Aéyot Kar’ obciay 
Tov viov TH maTpl, a. & El tie tov marépa mpecBirepov ypdve Aéyou Tob && éavTow 
Lovoyevot¢ viod, vedtepov d& ypsvw Tov vidv Tod TaTpoc, a. é But also finally: Ez ti¢ 
éovoia nal ovoia Aéywr tov ratépa warépa Tot viod, duoobcroy dé 7} Tavtoobarov Aéyor 

- Tov vlov TO traTpl, a. é. 

§ Concerning Liberius, bishop of Rome, who in the year 358 subscribed two Eusebian 
formulas in succession, for the purpose of regaining his episcopal dignity, see Larroquani, 
§ 82, Diss. cited, note 13, and Jo. la Placette Observationes hist. eccles., quibus eruitur - 
veteris ecclesiae sensus circa Pont. Rom. potestatem in definiendis fidei rebus, Amstel. 
1695. p. 137-150, 


4 


304 - SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—AD. set451. 7 ‘ 


the purpose of uniting in appearance with the ‘Somiarians, and 
yet establishing their own doctrine, now mayo: the formula, 

Tov vidv buoy TO Tatpt Kata naévta, Go al Gytat ypapai Aéyovot Te 
kal diddoxovor,’ and succeeded in convincing the emperor that all 
parties might be most easily united in it. For this purpose all 
bishops were now prepared, and then the westerns were summoned 


to a council at Ariminum, the easterns to another at Seleucia, 
‘simultaneously (359). After many efforts, the emperor at last 


succeeded.in getting most of the bishops to adopt that formula. 
But along with this external union, not only did ‘the internal 
doctrinal schism continue, but there were besides differences 
among such as had been like-minded, according as they had gone 


- in with that union or not. Thus Constantius at his death left all 


in the greatest confusion.® 
The interference of emperors, so foreign to the. secu in 


discussion, now ceased, at least for some time. Julian (361- 


363) was of course equally indifferent to all Christian sects, and 
restored all banished bishops to their sees.° Jovian also (¢ 364) 


and his successors in the west, Valentinian I. (¢ 375), then 


Gratian and Valentinian II. maintained general toleration. On 
the contrary, Valens, emperor of the east (364-378), was a 


zealous Arian, and persecuted the Homousiasts and Semiarians. - 


Since the last years of Constantius, various causes had been 
always tending to increase in the east the number of adherents 


to the Nicene council. When, in its greatest strictness, Arian- 


ism wished to regain the ascendency, the majority of the ori- 


7 The same is found i in the formula Sirmiensis tertia, which was composed by some 
Arians at Sirminm, and was submitted at Ariminum (in Athanasii de Synodis Arimini et 
Seleuciae celebratis epist. c. 8), in the formula Nices condita which was received at the 
end at Ariminum (in Theodoreti Hist. eccl. ii. 21) in the formula Seleuciensis (ap. Athanas. 
de Syn. c. 29) and the Constantinopolitana (ap. Athanas. 1. c. c, 30), all belonging to the 
year 359. Comp. Fuchs, ii. 201, 259, 271, 273. 

8 There is a correct estimate of his character in Ammian. Marcellin. xxi: 16: Christianam 
religionem absolutam et simplicem anili superstitione confudens ; in qua scrutanda per- 
plexius, quam componenda gravius, excitavit discidia plurima, quae progressa fusius aluit 
concertatione verborum: ut catervis Antistitam jumentis publicis ultro citroque discur- 
rentibus per Synodos, quas appellant, dum ritum omnem ad suum trahere conatur arbitrium 
rei vehiculariae succideret nervos. 


9 Ammian. Mare. xxii. 5: Utque dispositorum roboraret effectum, dissidentes Chris © 


tianorum Antistites cum plebe discissa in palatium intromissos monebat civilius, ut 
discerdiis consopitis quisque nullo vetante religioni suae serviret intrepidus. Quod agebat 
ideo obstinate, ut dissensiones augente licentia, non timeret unanimantem postea plebem; 
nullas infestas hominibus bestias, ut sunt sibi ferales plerique Christianorum, expertus. 
Saepeque dictitabat: Audite me e quem Alemanni audierunt et Franci. 


Ss 


CHAP. IIl—THEOLOGY. I. ARIAN PHRIOD. § 83. 805 


entals, who held fast by the emanation of the Son from the 
Father, must have felt a most decided aversion to it; while the 
Nicene decrees were naturally allied to those older notions, as 
fuller developments of them. Besides, the unity of the Nicenes, 
as contrasted with the constant wavering of the Eusebians, 
could do nothing less than make a most favorable impression. 
To this was added, finally, the influence of monachism, which, 
having now. arisen in Egypt, and speedily excited universal ad- 
miration, was closely connected with Athanasius; and in all 
countries where it was diffused, was busy in favor of the Nicen 
council,”° 
First of all, Meletiws declared himself in favor of the Nicene 
confession, immediately after he had been nominated bishop of 
Antioch, a.p. 361. But the old Nicene community,,which 
had still existed in Antioch from the time of Eustathius (§ 82, 
note 2), and was now headed by a presbyter Paulinus, refused 
to acknowledge the former Eusebian as bishop; and this Mele- 
tian selfism ® soon found a ground for itself also in the doctrinal 
distinction that the Meletians believed they must abide by three 
Hypostases in the Trinity, while the old Nicenes would only 
acknowledge in it three Prosopa.’* The council of Alexandria, 


10 Hence the frequent persecutions of the monks in Egypt bythe Arians. Cf. Athanasii, 
Encyclica, c. 3, Hist. Arianorum, c. 70, 72, and often. In like manner under Valens, 
Socrat. iv. 22 and 24. Thus the the monks of Cappadocia, in the year 363, broke off 
church communion with Gregory, bishop of Nazianzum, father of the theologian, because 
he had subscribed an ambiguous formula. See Ullmann’s Gregor. v. Nazianz. S. 61. 
Gregory of Nazianzum, Orat. xxi. p. 388, says of the monks in reference to that occur- 
rence: Of cay TdAAa Gory eipnvixol Te Kai wéTpLol, TOOTS ye Ob Gépovow értetKeic¢ eivat, 
Oeév mpodiddvat Oia TH¢ Hovyiac. GAAG Kai Aiav eiciv évratOa woAeutKol Te Kai Sbopaxot 
—«xai Oarrov dy Tt pH Oéov Tapakivycater, 7 déov Tapadinorev. 

11 Epiphan. Haer. Ixxiii. c. 28, 34. Socrat. ii. 44. Sozom. iv. 26. Theodoret. ii. 27. 
Soon after (363) many other Semiarian bishops joined him in a Synod at Antioch (Socrat. 
iii. 25). 

12 Respecting this schism, see Walch’s Ketzerhistorie, Th. 4, 8. 410, ff 

13 The Nicene Synod considered otoia and iréctacic as synonymous when it anathe- 
matized the formula é& érépag trootdcewe 7 ovaiac civat. The old Nicenes, the Egyp- 
tians, and Westerns, held fast by this. So Athanasius Ep. ad Afros, c. 4: ‘H trdéoraotc 
obcia éoti, Kal oddiv GAAo onuatvouevor Exet, 7} aiTé Td bv* 7 yap bréaTaclc Kai } oboia 
trapkic éotiv. éor. yap kai brdpyet. Gregory of Nazianzum (Orat. xxi.) derives this 
interchange of the terms from the poverty of the Latin language, which certainly translated 
both by substantia. We might venture to suppose here that the Nicene creed originated 
especially under the influence of a Latin, Hosius (see § 81, note 9). Hence the expression 
Tpei¢ broardcerc, as well as Tpei¢ oboiat, in Rome and Alexandria was regarded as Arian, 
and Meletius and Eusebius, bishops of Samosata, were here accustomed toi¢ ’Apetouavi- . 
Tae ovykarnpiOuqobat (Basil. Ep. 266). Basil may be considered the representative of 
the opposite view. Ep. 236: Odcia xal ixéoracic tatty exer THY SLagopay, Hv Exet Td 


vou. 1.—20 


306 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. 1—A.D. 324-451. 


assembled by Athanasius (362), sought, indeed, not only to 
smooth the way generally for the Arians to join their party by 
mild measures, but endeavored particularly to settle this dis- 
pute ;'* but Lucifer, bishop of Calaris, gave firm footing to the 
Meletian schism about the same time, by consecrating Paulinus 
as bishop of the Eustathians. Although /ucifer, from dissatis- 
faction with the mildness of the Alexandrian synod, separated 
with his followers from the church,” he had nevertheless put a 
great obstacle in the way of uniting the old and new Nicenes by 
the step taken in consecrating Paulinus. The westerns and Egyp- 
tians acknowledged Paulinus ; the oriental Nicenes, Meletius, 
as the orthodox bishop of Antioch. If the emperor Valens (864— 


KoLvov mpoc TO Ka ExacTrov. (Comp. similar explanations by others in Maji Scriptt. vett. 
nova coll. vii. 1,11.) He declares it therefore to be a matter of the highest importance to 
acknowledge tpeic brocrdcetc, since even Sabellius taught uiav dxdoraciv and rpia 
mpoowra. Comp. especially Basilii Ep. 38: also Ep. 125, 210, 214. (Klose’s Basil: d. 
Gr. S. 28.) Consequently he is delighted with his explanation 76 rpei¢ dvayKatov eivat 
Tac brootdcetc buodoyeiv, Epist. 258 ad Epiphanium. In Epist. 263 ad Occigentales, he 
accuses Paulinus of a leaning mpéc 76 MapxéAAov déyya, oite vidy év idia broordcet 
éuoroyodv, GAAG mpoevexGévra, Kai Tddiv brootpépayta ei¢ Tov bev mpoHAGev. The 
Orientals generally had entertained the same suspicion against the Latins. See Basilii 
Ep. 69, ad Athanasium, a.D. 371: ’Em{yreira: 62 xdkeivo mapa tivdv Tov évredbev 
évaykaiwc, O¢ Kal abtoic juiv Katagaivera, TO THY MapkéAdov aipecty abtode (Occiden- 
tales)—2fopicat. émei péypt Tov viv év mdow oic émiotéAdovot ypdupace Tov pev 
dvoevepoy “Apeiov vw Kai Kato avabeparivovrec—od diadeizover. MapkéAdw d2, TO 
Kata diduetpov éxeivy tHv dosBetay éxidetsapévy, Kal cic abtay tHY brapEw THe TOD 
povoyevoic OedtyTog doeBHoavti—oidepiay péupiy xeveyKévtec gaivovra. A milder 
judgment is given by Gregor. Naz. Or. xxi.: Tij¢ wide obciac Kai Tay Tp:Ov brooTdcEwD 
Aeyopévov piv b¢’ Hudy eboe3Gc voovpévav dé Kal Tapa Toi¢ *ITaAoic duoiwe, GAN’ ob 
dvvapévne Oia orevétnta Tig map’ abtoig yAéTre¢ Kai dvoudtwv reviav Oleheiv and THe 
obvoiac THY brooraow, kai 61a TovTO dvrevcayobons 7a Tpdcwra, iva pH Tpele oboiat 
mapadexbiot tt yiverat O¢ Ataw yehoiov 7 édeewvov; miotewe Edoke Siadopa 7 wept TOV 
7XOV outKporoyia. 

14 Epistola synodica Conc. Alex. (ap. Mansi, iii. p. 345, ss.): Iévrag toivuy zode 
Bovdouévove elpnvetew mpo¢ hudc, uddvora Tove év TH TahaG ovvayouévouc (the Mele- 
tians) xal rove dxd Tv ’Apetavar, rpookadécacbe rap’ éavtoic, Kal O¢ pev Tarépec vlov¢ 
mpooAdBecbe, Oc 62 diddoKadol Kai Kndeudvec arodsi=acbe, kal cvvawaytec éavToie Toi¢ 
ayarnroic hudy Toic rept MavAivov, undév rAeiov axarrnonte Tap’ abtav, 7} dvabeuarivery 
pév tH’ Aperavyy aipeoty, duodoyeiv 08 tiv Tap’ abtév dyiwv maTépwv duoroynbcicav év 
Nixaig riorcy. Then an explanation of the dispute respecting the hypostases. The one 
party teaches that there are three hypostases dca 7d ei¢ dyiav tprdda TioTebeLy obK 
évéuart Tpidda pévov, GAN dAnBGc obcay Kai igectécav, maTépa Te GAnOG¢ bvTa Kai 
boeotata, Kal vidy dAnbGc¢ évotciov ébvyta Kai bdeorGra, Kal mvedua Gytov bdeortic Kai 
imdpyov. The others, on the contrary, taught that there was one hypostasis, #yotuevor 
tabrov eivar elmeiv bréaTacwv Kai obciav. Those who were present of both parties 
might have mutually acknowledged one another as orthodox and agreed, BeAtiova Kat 
axpiBeorépav eivat THY év Nixaig mapa tov ratépwv buodoynGeicav riotiv, Kai Tod 
Aoirod toic TabtH¢ GpKetcOar waAAov Kai ypHobar Ppuacty. 

_- 18 Qn the Luciferian schism see Walch’s Ketzerhist. Th. 3, 8.338, ff. E.A.Frommanni 
de Lucifero Calaritano olim praesule epistola. Coburgi. 1767. 4. : 


CHAP. il.—THEOLOGY. I. ARIAN PERIOD.» § 83. 307 


878), had now’ favored - ‘the Semiarians instead of the Arians, 
he might, perhaps, have considerably checked the further spread 
of the Nicene party; but since he tried to make Arianism 
alone predominant by horribly persecuting all who thought dif- 
ferently,‘® he drove by this means the Semiarians who did not 
sink under persecution, to unite still more closely with the Ni- 
cenes. ‘Thus a great part of the Semiarians (or, as they were 
now also called, Macedonians, from Macedonius, bishop of Con- 
stantinople, who had been deposed at the instigation of the 
Arians, 360), “ declared themselves, at several councils of Asia 
Minor, in favor of the Nicene confession, and sent an embassy 
to Rome to announce their assent to it (366).1° However 
much the Arians, supported by the emperor Valens, endeavored 
to counteract this new turn of affairs, yet the Macedonians 
were always passing over more and more to. the Nicene creed ; 
and for this the three great teachers of the church in particular, 
Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Gregory of 
Nyssa, began now to work. These new oriental Nicenians did 
not believe their faith changed by their assent to the Nicene 
formula, but thought they had merely assumed a more definite 
expression for it in the rightly understood éuoodvetoc.’® They 


16. The Aéyo¢ mpocdwrytixéc, by which Themistius about 372 in Antioch is said to- have 
disposed the emperor to milder measures, Socrat. iv. 32, Sozom. vi. 36, is lost, and must 
not be confounded with the Orat. de religionibus (§ 77, note 5), Neander, ii. 1, 149, A. 

17 Socrat. ii. 45, 

18 Socrat. iv. 12: @68@ uaAAov Kai Bia otevoywpotpuevol, KaTa TéAELC OLeTpEecBetovTO 
mpoc GAAndouc, Ondotyrec deiv && dvdyxne Katadgedbyewv rept Te Tov AdEAgov TOD BactAéwe 
(Valentinianum I.), cat éxi AtBéptov tHe ‘Pune ’Enioxorov, donalec@ai te Tov éxeiver 
riot uaALov 7 Kowwveiv toic wept Eiddgtov.. Cf. Sozom. vi. 10. 

19 Syn. Antioch. ann. 363, Epist. ad Jovianum (ap. Soer. iii. 25): Td doxodv Sévov ticiv 
évoua, TO Tov Guoovoior signifies, 6tt éx THe odciag Tod maTpédc 6 vidg éyervHOn, Kai STL, 
6uotocg Kat’ odctay TH waTpi.. Those sent by Macedonius to Liberius (Sozom. vi. 10).7d 
duo0bctov bvoua déxovtat, S¢ TO duoiw kat’ obciay Ta aité onpaivoy. In like manner 
Basilius Ep. ix. ad Maximum: ’Eya d&—ré guotov Kar’ obciav—déyouat THY Garv7zy, O¢ 
sic Tabtov TO duooveiw dépovoary, Kata THY byi@ OnAovédte Tod duoociov didvorav. Basil 

_had belonged to the Semiarians (Klose’s Basilius d. G. Stralsund. 1835. S. 21), and 
with its leaders, such as Basil of Ancyra, and Eustathius of Sebaste, had been active at 
the theological disputations in Constantinople, 359.. (Gregor. Nyss. contra Eunom. i: 
p. 301. Philostorg. iv. c. 12.) He writes, however, of himself, Epist. 223, § 3: “Ep ye 
TOdTO TOAuG Kavyaobar év Kupiv, br. oddé ToTE mendavnnevac Eoxov Tag Tept Gead. 
brorfwerc, # érépwc dpovav peréuabov torepov- —"Qorep yap To onépua absavéuevor 
petlov pév Grd utxpod yiverat, Tabrov dé éotiv ev éavTG, 0d Kata yévog weTaBaddopevov, 
GA2G Kar’ absqow Tederobpevon ° ob TO Aoyiouat kal éuot Tov abrov Aéyov Oa Tipe 
TpoKonHe nogjoba:, obyi d& dvti Tow && Upyic dvTo¢ Tov viv bndpyovta yeyevpodat. 
In this sense Athanasius, de Synodis § 41, passes judgment also on the Semiarians: 
Tipd¢ d2 tobe arodexouévove Ta piv GAda Tavta Tov év Nixaia ypadévTav, wept JF 
udvov Td duoobo.oy GugiBaAAovrac, xp} uy Ge Tpd¢ exOpove drakeiobar: Kai yap Kak 


308 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 324-451. 


abided by the three hypostases of their Semiarianism, and at- 
tached themselves to the Meletians; but on this very account 
they could not keep church communion with the old Nicenes, 
notwithstanding all the efforts made by Basil to effect that ob- 
ject." Since they supposed that they had unchangeably. re- 
mained steadfast to their faith, they also continued to consider 
their Eusebian and Semiarian forefathers as orthodox, although 
condemned by the old Nicenes.** Thus the canons of the ori- 
ental councils held during the schism, constantly remained in 
force, particularly those of the council of Antioch, a.v. 341,” 


jusic oby O¢ mpdoc ’Apetouavirac, odd & paxouévovg Tpd¢ Tove TaTépac évioTaucba, 
GAN O¢ cdeAgot mpoe GdeAGode Stareyoueba, THY abTHy pev Huly Sidvoray Exovtac, rept 
dé 70 6voua uévov dtoralovtTac. In like manner Hilarius de Synodis, § 76, ss. 

20 Comp. Basilii Ep. 69, ad Athanasium, Ep. 70, ad Damasum, both A.D. 371 (see Garnier 
vita Basilii, p. 94, prefixed to tom. iii. Opp. Bas.). Then a.p. 372, Ep. ad Occidentales; 
Ep. 91, ad Valerianum Illyric. Episc., Ep. 92, ad Italos et Gallos (Garnier, p. 110).—a.v. 
376: Ep. 242, Orientalium ad Occidentales, Ep. 243, Basilii ad Epise. Italos et Gallos 
(Garnier, p. 159).—a.D. 377: Ep. 263, Orientalium ad Occidentales (Garnier, p. 165). Con- 
cerning these negotiations with the Avricoic Basil affirms, Ep. 239, ad Euseb. Episc. 
Samosatorum, A.D. 376: ’Euol ev yap Td rod Atouhdove (Tiad, ix. 698, 699) éxépyeras 
A€éyeww’ un dderec AiccecBat di6tt, onoiv, dynvup éotiv 6 dvjp. TO dvi yap Beparevé- 
eva TA Drepjgava Oy éavtdv brepontixOtepa yivecbar wéguke. Kai yap éav perv 
ihacby juiv 6 Kipioc, woiac érépac mpocbAKne Sedpcba ; div 62 ertpeivyn 7 dpy7n Tod Oeod, 
rota Bonbera juiv tie SuTixiie ddpbog ; of TS GAnOe¢ odte icacwy obTe pabeiv avéxovral, 
wevdéor d& brovoiae mpoetAnupévor, éxeiva movodor viv, & mpérepov exit MapKéAdy. 
mpog méev Tove THY GAHPerav adroic dmayyéAAovrac SlAoverkjoavtec. THY dé aipeoty Ov’ 
éavtév BeBaidoartec. "Eye pév yap abric, dvev Tod Kotvod oxhuartoc, EBovA6unv abtov 
émiotetAat TO Kopvdaiw, wepl yey TOv éxxAnoractiKy obser, ei pH dcov mapatvitacbat, 
6tt obte iaact Tév Kap’ hiv THY GAHGeLav, odte THY ddor, dv’ Ho dv pavbdvorsv, KaTadé- 
yovra.. J. E. Feisser Diss. de vita Basilii M. Groning. 1828. 8, p. 96, ss. Klose’s Basilius 
d. G. S. 183, 201, 238. 

21 The Bishop Dianius, one of the predecessors of Basil in Caesarea, had played 2 
principal part among the Eusebian bishops at the councils of Antioch and Philippopolis; 
yet Basil praises him very much notwithstanding, Ep. 51, and assures us, Ep. 140: “Ear: 
toivuv éx ratépwv éurodttevouéry TH exkAnoia judy h ypageioa Tapa TOV dyiwv maté- 
pov riotic Tév Kata THY Nikxatay cvveAOdvrwr. In like manner Gregor. Naz. Orat. iii. 
Sozom. v. 10, Theodoret, H. E. iii. 3, praise the Semiarian Marcus bishop of Arethusa as 
a Christian martyr under Julian. 

22 Innocentius I. Ep. 7, ad Constantinopolitanos, a.p. 405, designates these 25 canons as 
composed by heretics,—non solum non: sequendos, verum etiam una cum haereticis et 
schismaticis dogmatibus condemnandos: yet the orientals held them fast. The council of 
Chalcedon appeals to them, Act. 4. Soon after they were translated in the prisca versio 
with the Greek Codex Canonum, were transferred for the greater part into the Canones 
Apostolorum (See Divis. I. § 67, note 5), and enjoyed from this time forward, even in the 
west, undisputed authority. Pope Zacharias, Ep. 7, ad Pipinum, calls them beatorum 
patrum sanctiones; Nicolaus I. Ep. 9, ad Michaelem Imp. venerabiles Antiochenos et 
sacros canones. On this account modern Catholic historians have wished to make two 
Antiochian councils, a Catholic and a Eusebian one. Eman. a Schelstrate sacr. Antioch- 
enum concil. pro Arianorum conciliabulo passim habitum, nunc vero primum ex antiquitate 
auctoritati suae restitutum. * Antverp. 1681. 4. P. et H. fratres Ballerinii de antiquis 
collectionibus canonum, P. i. c. 4, § 2 (in the appendix to the Opp. Leonis M. Venet. 1757. 


CHAP. IL—THEOLOGY. I. ARIAN PERIOD. § 83. 309 


and of Laodicea (perhaps 4.p. 363),’? which canons afterward 
passed over from the oriental to the occidental church. 

During this time new schisms had been made by new dis- 
putes on points of doctrine. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit, 
amid the controversies respecting the Logos, had for a long time 
remained untouched, and very different views respecting it were 
in consequence entertained.** But when in the east not only 
the Semiarians, but also many of the new Nicenians could not 
_ get rid of the Arian idea that the Holy Spirit is a creature and 
servant of God,” the other Nicenes took Bron offense at this, 
and opposed these errorists as IIvevpatoudyovc."® But they were 


Reprinted in A. Gallandii de Vetustis canonum collectionibus dissertationum ee 
Venet. 1778. fol. Mongunt. 1790. tomi ii. 4. 

23 Because Gratian Decreti, P. i. Dist. 16, c. 11, says of the Laodicean canons: Qoniin 
auctor maxime Theodosius Episcopus extitit, Gothofredus ad Philost. and Pagi Crit. ann. 
314, note 25, conjecture that the Eunomian Theodosius, bishop of Ree in Lydia, 
brought about this synod. Cf. Philostorg. viii.-c. 4. 

24 Gregorii Naz. Qrat. theol. v. de Spir. S. § 5 (Orat. 31, formerly 37): ‘Tov 6& ka? 

jude cogev of wév évépyetay Tovro (76 rvedua Gytov) bréAaBov, of 52 Kticpa, of Jé Gedv, 
ol 68 ob €yvacay éx6TEepov TovTwY, aidol THe ypadyc, O¢ Gactv, O¢ oidév Etepov cage 
Oniwodonc.—oi piv Gxpt dtavoiac eiciv eboeBeic, of de ToAUGow edceBeiv Kai Toi¢ yeide- 
ow, k. 7.4. Hilarius de Trin. ii. 29: Cum dicunt, per quem sit (Sp. 8.), et ob quid sit, 
vel qualis sit; si responsio nostra displicebit dicentium: “per quem omnia, et ex que 
omnia sunt, et quia Spiritus est Dei, donum fidelium;”’ displiceant et Apostoli et Pro- 
phetae, hoc tantum de eo quod esset loquentes. On the following dispute see Baw’s 
Dreieinigkeit, i 490. 
et majus Patris per Filion opus, éviabark per Filius. hipaihaiiien Ep. ‘vieaua (about 
382), in G. Waitz aber d: Leben u. die Lehre des Ulfila. Hannover. 1840. 4.'8. 19: 
Spiritam Sanctum—a Patre per Filium ante omnia factum—ab ingenito per unigenitum 
in tertio gradu creatum, is proved by Joh. i.3: Qmnia per ipsum facta sunt, and 1 Cor. 
viii. 6: Unus Deus Pater, ex quo omnia, et unus dominus J. Chr., per quem omnia. 

_ 26 They were first attacked by Athanasius Epist. iv. ad Serapionem Episc. Thmuitanum 
{between 358 and 360), after Serapion had informed him (Epist. 1. init.) d¢ ée28dvTwv yév 
Tivev ard Tov ’Apeavdy 61d THv KaT& Tod viod Tod Geod BAacdnuiav, gpovotvTav dE 
Kata Tov aylov mvetuatog Kai AeyévTwv abTd wR udvov KTicua, GAAG Kai TOY AEtovpyt- 
KOv mvevudtav €v abré eivat, kat Babu@ povov atrd dicagépetv Tov dyyéAwv. Epist. 
Synod. Conc. Alex. A. D. 362,—Basilii M de Spiritu.S. lib, ad Amphilochium, A, D. 374.— 
Gregorii Nazianz. Orat. 37 et 44 (comp. Ullmann’s Gregorius v. Naz. 8. 378, ff.) Epi- 
phanius adv. Haer. (about 374) Haer. Ixxiii. rv ‘“Hucapeiwv. § 1: Of 62 abroi Kai zepi 
Tod dyiov mvetuatoc tows Toi¢ IIvevyarouéyorc eiciv Exovrec. Haer. Ixxiv. tév IIvev- 
warouaxar. § 1. "Awd totrwv tov *Hwapeiwv, kai ard dp80d65av TLVveC, og eltreiv, 
tépag toi [leg. tepdoriot] yevvybévrec dvOpwroi—GAaconuovor TO nveipa TO dycov. 
Philastrius {about 380) de Haeresibus, c. 67: Semiariani sunt quoque. Hi de Patre et 
Filio bene sentiunt—Spiritum autem non de divina substantia, nec Deum verum, sed 
factam atque creatum Spiritam praedicantes, ut eum conjungant et comparent creaturae. 
In all these writers Pneumatomachi is still the exclusive appellation of these errorists. 
On the contrary the Semiarians were at that time called Macedonians. At the time of 
the first council of Constantinople (381), Constantinople was the chief seat of the Semiari- 
ans (cf. Gregorii Naz. vita a. Gregor. Presb. conscripta. Secrat. ii. 45: Oi wept Maxeddviov 


310 ‘SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—AD. 324-451. 


not ‘yet all prepared to style the Holy Spirit God.** Finally, 
the number of sects was increased by a zealous adherent of the 
Nicene couneil, Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, who, misled, 
perhaps, by his aversion to Origen,” believed that he was neces-~ 
- sarily obliged to concede to the Arians the position,”® that the 
Logos in Christ supplied the place of the rational soul voi¢ or 
wy?) Aoyi«A,*® and from about 371 gathered round him the ad- 


sig TOv 'EAAHomovTOY eKeavigonas): Hence the appellations Semiariani, Prieitiaiianiach) 
and Macedoniani (can. 1 and 7) were used as synonymous by this council. Inasmuch as - 
the peculiarity of this party regarding the doctrine of the Son was unimportant, nothing 
but their views of the Holy Spirit remained to make them heretical. Hence, by an easy 
transition, Macedonius came to be considered the author of this heresy, as is the case so 
early as Sozom. iv. 27: "Eresdy Maxedévt0¢ dgypéOn THY  Kovoravtwourdiewc exnAgotav, 
elonyeito Tov vldv Gedy eivat, Kata TavTa Te Kal Kat’ ovciay buotoy TH mwaTpe- Td: 62 
aytov mredua duotpov TOv abtdv mpecBeiwv anegaivero, SidKovov Kai brnpéTHv Kadov, 
nat boa wepi TOv Oeiuy dyyéAwv Aéywr Tic obk dv Guadptot. Hence, from this time on- 
ward the usual name for those who were heretical in their views of the Holy Ghost was 
Macedoniani, instead of Pneumatomachi; although it is unquestionable that Macedonius, 
though he entertained those sentiments, like all the Semiarians, was not the author of them. 

27 Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste,; who had been at the head of that Semiarian embassy 
to Rome (see note 18), and had since become a Nicenian, declared:-’Ey® otre Oedv 
dvoudley 7d rvedpa TO Gytov alpoiuat, obte KTioua Kadeivy ToAuHoats (Socrat. ii. 25): 
It is true that subsequently the orientals accused him before the Occidentals of having 
gone over to the Arians, and having become axpwrtoordrn¢e THe. TOV. TvEevuaTouayor 
aipécewe (Basilii, Ep. 263, § 3).: In conformity with that earlier declaration of Eustathius 
was the conduct also of his friend at that time, Basil the Great. He ‘would have all 
admitted to church-fellowship, Ep. 113, rode ua A€yovrag Kriowa TO mvEeiua TO dytov. 
But he himself abstained from calling the Holy Ghost God, on which Gregory of Nazian- 
zum was obliged to hear reproaches (Gregor. Ep. 26, ad Basil.), and. exculpated Basil-:in 
‘this way: TloAde rept abriv 6 réAeuoc, CytobvTwr AaBéobar Tv alpsrudy yumrac THs 
' dwvi¢ (namely repli rob mvetuaToc, b¢ eln Oebc)—ir’ 6 ev &woOR THe ExxAnoiac, pilwOh 
dé To xaxdv év TH 76Aet. So also in his laudatory address to Basil, Orat. xx: p. 364. 
The monks. in Caesarea:were particularly indignant against Basil, but in opposition to 
them he was justified hy Athanasius Ep. ad Palladium: Abrdg uév yap, dc tebdppnka 
toic dobevovowy dobevag yivetat, iva Tove dobeveic Kepdjoy. Cf. Garnier vita Basilii, 
p. 95, ss. That Basil made up his view of the Holy Spirit from Plotinian ideas of the 
ideal world, and the world: of soul, is shown by A. Jahn, Basilius Magnus plotinizans. 
Bernae. 1838. 4. When. Gregory of Nazianzum preached the deity of the Holy Spirit 
openly, it was objected to him (Orat. theol. v. de Spir. 8. § 1): [lé@ev quty émerodyere 
Sévov Oedv cat dypadov; and he admitted, § 26: "Exjpvoce gavepGc 7 madaa Tov 
Tarépa, Tov Yidv duvdpdérepov* egavépwoer Fj h Kawwh tov Yidr, bréderse Tod Ivetuaror 
Thy Oedrnra’ guroditederac viv 76 Lveipua, cagecrépav juiv sisi ek THY Eavtod djAwor. 

28 See below, § 84, note 24. 

29. Cf. Eudoxii Ariani fragm. (in Maji Scriptt. vett. nova coll: vii. 1, 17): Tioresouer— 
eic va Kbptov,—oapxwhévra, ob évavOporfoarra: obte yap wuyRv GvOpurivyy dveidy- 
bev, GAAG caps yéyovev’—od dbo gbcetc: eet pH TEAELOC Fv GvOpwTog, GA? Gvti Woyis 
Gedg évicapxi. Lucii Alexandrini Ariani fragm. 1. c2: Ai& roidto Bog riy GAnGeLav 
‘lwdvyncg 6 Adyoc caps éyévero, Gvti Tov, GvveTtéOn capKi, od ld pox. —Ei 62 Kai 
oxy elyev,—paxerat 7a kivqpara Beod Kai oxic * abrokivytov yap TobTwr éxaTepor, 

80 Comp. Baur’s Dreieinigkeit, i. 559. So putty as in ake eipist. syncd: Conc: Ales A.Ds 
362, in which even delegates of Apollinaris. took part,,we find, hut without the name of 





CHAP. IL—THEOLOGY. I. ARIAN PERIOD. §83. 311 


— of this sentiment eran Lvvovovaorat, Aorpt- 
Tal. 

Thus Theodosius, who as a 2 Spaniard was a zealous adherent 
of the Nicene council, found at his accession to the throne, in 


the latter, the polemic declaration: ‘Quodéyovv yap Kai toito, btt ob cHua awuyov, 
ots’ avaicOyrov, odd’ dvéytov eiyev 6 cwtHp. This opinion is also contradicted by Atha- 
nasius, especially in Epist. ad Epictetum (371), contra Apollinarium libb. ii. (372), yet 
. without naming Apollinaris (see Mohler’s Athanasius, Th. 2. S. 263, ff.), although Epi- 
phanius Haer. 77, considers those works as refutations of it. Basil the Great heard of the 
heresy of Apollinaris in 373 (Ep. 129 ad Meletium), and wrote about it 374 (Ep. 264 ad Oc- 
cidentales, and Ep. 265 ad Aegyptios). Fragments of the writings of Apollinaris belong- 
ing to the present subject (mepi évoapkdécewc, wept miotewc) are preserved chiefly in 
Gregory of Nyssa and Theodoret. Fragments of several epistles of Apollinaris are found 
in Leontius Byzant. (about 590) adv. fraudes Apollinaristarum libb. 2. (ex. lat. vers. Tur- 
riani in Canisii Lectt. ant. ed. Basnage, i. 608, ss. Gallandii Bibl. PP. xii. 706). . Scat- 
tered fragments of every kind are in Majii Scriptt. vett..nova coll. tom. vii. P. i.. Answers 
to Apollinaris were written by Diodorus Tarsensis, Theodotus ‘Antiochenus, and the two 
bishops of Alexandria, Theophilus and Cyril. Still extant are Gregorii Naz. Ep. ad Nec- 
tarium, or Orat. 46, and Ep. ii. ad Cledonium, or Orat. 51 and 52 (Ullmann’s Greg: von 
Naz. S. 401, ff.): and the far more important Gregorii Nysseni. dvtippytixd¢. rpd¢ Ta 
*ArroAAuvapiov (prim. ed. Zacagnius Monim. veter. eccl. Gr. and in Gallandii Bibl. PP. 
vi.517). Nemesius de Natura hominis,c.1. Tuvé¢ pév, dv éore kal WAwtivoc, daaqv 
elvat THY Woxnv, Kal GAdov Tov vodv doypuaticavtec, tk TpLGv Tov GvOpwrov cuvectavat 
Botdiovrat, coparoc, Kai puyqe, Kai vod. Oil¢g HKodobOyce cai ’AroAAwapLoc,'6 Tie Aao- 
dixeiag yevopuevoc éxtoxorog’ todtov yap rn§dpevoc.tov-Oeuédiov THe idiac d6Ene, Kal Ta 
Aoirad mpocwKoddunoe Kata 76 oixeiov Séyua. Apollinarius ap. Greg. Nyss.c. 35: 'O 
dvOparoc cic gory éx rvebsatog Kai Wux7e Kai céuatoc-—C.9: Td 67 xveiua, tavtéote 
Tov vobyv, Oedv Exov 6 Xpiotric petra Woyje Kai cdéuartos, eixbtwc GvOpwrog é& obpavod. 
Réyerat (1 Cor, xv. 47, ss.)\—C. 7: Oedg wév (é071) TS wredpate TO capkwbévtt, dvOparoc 
62 77) id Tod Devt Tp0cAnPbeion capKi.—C. 23: OdK dvOparoc,-4A2d¢: GvOpuro¢" (Phil. 
ii. 7), dedTe oby Suoobotog TH GvOpGry KaTA TO KYptéTatov.—C. 39 : Ei dvOpdrw TeAzio 
ovvid0n Oed¢ TéAetoc, Sto dv joav.—C. 42: Eic uév dbcer vidc Oeod, sig d2 Gerd¢.—C. 48: 
El é« navtov tdv tow jquiv éott Toi¢. xoixoicg. 6 érovpdviog dvOpwrog (ote Kai 7d 
mvevua ioov éyeww Toic xoikoic), obx Exovpdviog, GAM éxovpaviov Beot doyeiov.—C. 44: 
‘H cap& tod Kupiov xpooxvveita, Kalo év éotit, mpdcwrov Kai év Gdov per abrod. 
Mydév roinua mpockuvyTov peta Tod Kupiov, &¢ 7 caps aitod. From this resulted the 
principle of one nature in Christ, Apoll. fragm. ap. Majum, vii. i. 16: Mig. d& ovyxpato 
TH dbcer GvOpwrov tiv Kiptov Aéyouev, wig d2 ovyxpaty TF dicer capKiKH Te. Kal Geixp. 
In another fragment Apollinaris designates the entire spiritual principle in man_as wvy7, 
and makes the place of it in Christ be supplied bythe Logos. Ap. Majum, vii. i. 203: ‘O 
Todvenc—einav, 6tt 6 Adyoc acdps éyéveto, ob mpocéOynke, Kai wuyy* adbvatov yap Oto 
voepa kal OeAntixa év TO Gua Karolkeiy, iva pH Td Erepov Kata Tov étrépov dvTioTpared- | 
nrat dua Tie olxeiacg GeAncews Kai évepyeiac. Obkodv od Wryne avOpwrivac émeAaBeto 
- &2ébyoc, AAA pbvov orépuatog ’ABpadu" TO yap Tov Sepatog Inood vadby xpodiéypapev 
6 duxoc Kai dvove Kai GOeAHe TOU LoAouGvto¢ vaéc.. Some of his disciples, especially 
‘Polemius (Polemiani) taught é« tév obpavady KateAnAvbévar rob Kupiov.t6 oda, duood- 
Giov 7) cua tT. Xp. TH, Oedryre. Epiph. Haer. 77, § 2, 20. -Theodoret. Haer. fab. iv. 9. 
Chr. A. Salig. de Eutychianismo ante Eutychen. Guelpherb. 1723. 4—From this time 
forward the threefold division of man began to be considered heterodox. Keilii Roki a 
 acad. t. ii. ps 641, ss. 
ae Zuvovoracrat, because they taught, cvvovoiwory yeyevqo0at. kal -Kpdotv tij¢ beétn- 
To¢ Kat Tov. cdyaroc (Theodoret. Haer. fab. comp.iv. 9). Hence Theodotus of Antioch, 
and Diodorus of Tarsus, wrote kata Svvove.acrGv. Dimoeritae apud Epiphan. Haer. 77. 


312 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 324-451. 


the west (379) universal toleration; in the east Arianism prev- 
alent, the Homousiasts persecuted, and besides them the parties 
of the Photinians, Macedonians, and Apollinarists, with innu- 
merable older sects. After conquering the Goths, he began 
forthwith to declare Homousianism to be the catholic faith, and © 
to persecute other parties.* The more effectually to remove 
existing evils, he summoned a. general council at Constantino-— 
ple (381),°° by which the schism between the Nicenes was 
peaceably removed,** and the Nicene creed enlarged with addi- 
tions directed against heretics who had risen up since its origin.* 


32 A law of the year 380, Cod. Theod. xvi. 1, 2: Cunctos populos, quos clementiae nos- 
trae regit temperamentum, in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum Petrum Apos- 
tolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat, quamque pontifi- 
cem Damasum sequi claret, et Petrum Alexandriae episcopum, virum apostolicae sanc- 
titatis : hoc est ut secundum apostolicam disciplinam evangelicamque doctrinam Patris et 
Filii et Spiritus Sancti unam deitatem sub parili majestate et sub pia trinitate credamus. 
Hance legem sequentes Christianorum catholicorum nomen jubemus amplecti, reliquos 
vero dementes vesanosque judicantes, haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere, nec conci- 
liabulo eorum ecclesiarum nomen accipere, divina primum vindicta, post etiam motus 
nostri, quem ex caelesti arbitrio sumserimus, ultione plectendos. Ullmann’s Gregor. v. ' 
Naz. 8. 220, ff. Stuffken Diss. de Theodos. M. in rem Christ. meritis.. Lugd. Bat. 1828. 
8, p. 135, ss. 

33 of pv’. Respecting it see Fuchs Bibl. d. Kirchenverf. ii. 390. Ullmamn, 8. 238. 
Stuffken, p. 142. 

34 To this Synod Meletius, as bishop of Antioch, was summoned, not Paulinus, with 
whom the westerns communicated, and was even a mpdedpoc of the council (Gregorii Naz. 
Carmen de vita sua, v. 1514). When he died during the council, Flavianus was appointed 
to succeed. him, without reference to Paulinus (Ullmann, S. 245). The schism did not 
entirely disappear till a.p. 413 (Theodoret. v. 35). 

35 Symb. Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum : Ilioredopuev cic Eva Oedv, matépa mavroKpé- 
Topa, ToLnTHY ov’pavod Kai yH¢, Opatav Te TadvTwv Kai dopdruyr, Kai ei¢ Eva Kiptov ’Incody 
Xpioréy, tov vidv rod bot Tov povoyera, Tov éK Tod TaTpd¢ yevynbévTa mpd TavTAV 
TOV aidvar, Gc éx dwTdc, Bedv GAyOivdv ék Oeod GAnOiwod, yevvnbévta ob roinGévra, 
éuootatov TH matpi dt’ od TA Tavta tyévero. Tov dv’ ude Tod¢ dvOpérove Kai dvd THY 
quetépav owrnpiav KateAOovra éx TOY obpavdr, Kai capkalévra éx mvebpatog dyiov Kat 
Mapiac ti¢ rapbévov, kai évavOpwrjoavta’ oravpwhévra Te brép Hudy xi Tlovriov Tu- 
Adrov, kai rabévra Kai TagévTa Kai dvactévra év TH TpiTy Huépa KaTa TAC ypadac* Kat 
dvedbvra sig Tove obpavoic, kai xaBeliuevov éx defiGyv Tod TaTpodc, Kai TaALY eEpydoue- 
vov peta O6&y¢ Kpivat COvTac Kai vexpodc’ ob tHE Bactheiac obk ~aTtat TéAOc. Kai eic¢ 
Td dytov’ rvetua, TO KdpLov (according to 2 Cor. iii. 17. See Theodoret. ad h. 1.), 7d Gwo- 
molov (according to Joh. vi. 63), rd 2k Tob marpoc éxropevdpuevon (according to Joh. xv. 26), 
To obv ratpi Kai vid ovurpockvvotpevoy Kai ovvbokaléuevor, Td AaAjoay dia THY mpodn- 
tv’ ei¢ piav dyiav KaboAtkhy Kal GrooroAtKhny éxkAnoiav. ‘Ouodoyotpev év Bartiopa ei¢ 
ddeotv Guaptiov* rpoodokGuev dvdoracty vexpOv Kai Ganv Tod uwéAovToe aldvoc* ’Aufy. 
J. C. Suicer Symbolum Nicaeno Constantinopol. expositum et ex antiquitate ecclesiastica 
illustratum. Traj.ad Rhen. 1718. 4. Already, about 375, a Roman synod under Damasus 
had declared Sp. S. cum Patre et Filio unius potestatis esse atque substantiae (Mansi, iii. 
482), and an Illyrian synod, éuoobctor eivar tiv tpidda [arpo¢, Yiod Kai dyiov Ivetparog 
(Theodoret. iv. 8): But in Constantinople they did not yet venture to give utterance to any 
unbiblical formulas respecting the Holy Spirit, in order not to stir up new controversies in 
the east, where there were still so many opponents of his deity —Immediately after the 


CHAP. I—THEOLOGY. I. ARIAN PERIOD. § 83. 313 


Valentinian II. allowed the Arians in the west to enjoy freedom 
of religion some years longer ;*° but the case was quite altered 
by Theodosius,*” and a universal suppression of the sect ensued. 
The last traces of its existence in the Byzantine empire appear 
under the emperor Anastasius at Constantinople, 491-518." 

The subject of the controversy was merely the point of same- 
ness in essence between the three persons. ‘The unity and 
- equality of the persons, which necessarily resulted from holding 
sameness Of essence, was not fully acknowledged at once even 
‘by tue Nicenians,* but continued to be more clearly perceived,*® 
until at last it was expressed by Awgwstine for the first time 
with decided logical consequence.*! 


close of the council, Theodosius passed the law of the 30th July, 381. (Cod. Theodos. xvi. 
1, 3): Episcopis tradi omnes Ecclesias mox jubemus, qui unius majestatis atque virtutis 
. Patrem et Filium et Spiritam Sanctum confitentur, ejusdem gloriae, claritatis unius ; nihil 
dissonum profana divisione facientes, sed Trinitatis ordinem, personarum adsertionem, et 
divinitatis unitatem: quos constabit communione Nectarii Episc. Constantinopolitanae 
Ecclesiae, Timothei necnon intra Aegyptum Alexandrinae urbis Episcopi esse sociatos : 
quos etiam in Orientis partibus Pelagio Ep. Laodicensi, et Diodoro Ep. Tarsensi; in Asia 
necnon proconsulari atque Asiana dioecesi Amphilochio Ep. Iconiensi, et Optimo Ep. 
Antiocheno (of Antioch in Pisidia); in Pontica dioecesi Helladio Ep. Caesariensi, et 
Otrejo Meliteno, et Gregorio Ep. Nysseno; Terennio Ep. Scythiae, Marmario Ep. Mar- 
cianop. communicare constiterit: hos ad obtinendas catholicas Ecclesias ex communione 
et consortio probabilium sacerdotum oportebit admitti, etc. In like manner there followed 
laws against heretics, which were often repeated. See Cod. Theodos. xvi. 5, de Haeret- 
icis L. 6-14, 16, 17, 19, 21-23. 

36 At the instance of his Arian mother Justina, Cod. Th. xvi. 1, 4 (A.D. 386), cf. Ambros. 
Epist. 20, 21, 22. Rufini Hist. Eccl. ii. 15, In the mean time, however, but a small num- 
ber of Arians had gathered around the empress at Milan. Cf. Epist. ii. Conc. Aquilej. 
ann. 381, ad Impp. ap. Mansii, iii. p. 623 : Per occidentales partes duobus in angulis antum, 
hoc est in latere Daciae Ripensis ac Moesiae fidei obstrepi videbatur. 

37 When driven away by Maximus, he found refuge with Theodosius. His law against 
the heretics, 4.D. 388, see Cod. Theod. xvi. 5,15. Cf. Gothofred. adh. legem. Soon after 
even an Arian in the west wrote in defense of his doctrinal creed. See the interesting 
reliquiae tractatus in Lucae Evang. and fragmenta sermonum in Ang. Maji rane 
veterum nova collectio, t. iii. P. ii. 

%8 Theodorus Lector, ii. p. 562, fragm. P- 582. 

%9 Comp. especially Hilarii de Trin. iii. 12: Et quis non Patrem potiorem confitebitur, 
ut ingenitum a genito, ut Patrem a Filio, ut eum qui miserit ab eo qui missus sit, ut 

“volentem ab eo qui obediat? Etipse nobis erit testis: Pater major me est. iv.16: Dicit 
ergo fieri Deus ex quo omnia sunt, et facit Deus per quem omnia (according to 1 Cor. viii. 
6). Haec distinctio jubentis Dei, et facientis Dei. 
40 Athanasius had rejected the old proposition that the Son exists by the will of the 
Father, Orat. adv. Arianos i. (formerly ii.) 29: Td d2 yévynua ob Bovdsjoe: ixéxecrat, 
GAA tite oboiac éctiv ididTNE. 

“ Augustinus de Trin. vii. 11: Non major essentia est Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanc 
tus simul, quam solus Pater, aut solus Filius: sed tres simul illae substantiae (iro- 
otdcetc) sive personae, si ita dicendae sunt, aequales sunt singulis: quod animalis homo 
non percipit. 12: Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus unus Deus. Id. contra sermonem 
Arianorum § 4: Unus Deus est ipsa Trinitas, et sic unus Deus, quomodo unus creator: 


314 _ SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—AD. 324-451 


§ 84. 


HISTORY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SCIENCES DURING THE ARIAN 
DISPUTES. 


Among the theological schools of this period the most distin- 
guished were that of Origen, and the Syrian historico-exeget- 
ical, whose origin belongs to the preceding period. Origen 
enjoyed the highest esteem, and it is to be attributed to the 
wide-extended influence of his writings that notwithstanding 
these furious theological disputes, some freedom in theology was 
still preserved. In the great question of the time, both parties 
could appeal to him.' When the Arians referred to the decla- 


ration in his own writings, and in those of his disciples Dionysius ~ 


and Theognostus, that the son is a creature, Athanasius, on the 
contrary, drew from the same source arguments for the eternal 
generation of the Logos.? Men were the less perplexed by con- 
trary passages in his writings, inasmuch as they knew and al- 
ready practiced many expedients for the purpose of making such 
expressions of the fathers as were contradictory to the more 
modern views, powerless and void. Thus Origen had adherents 
among both parties. Among the Eusebians, he had in partic- 
ular Eusebius Pamphili, bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine 
(+ 340), a man distinguished alike for his love of peace and his 
merits as a church historian.‘ Among the Nicenians, were 


quid est quod. dicunt, jubente Patre creasse omnia Filium, tanquam Pater non creaverit, 
sed a Filio creari jusserit? .Formant sibi in phantasmate cordis sui quasi duos aliquos, 
etsi juxta invicem, in suis tamen locis constitutos, unum jubentem, alteruam obtemperan- 
tem. Nec intelligunt, ipsam jussionem Patris, ut fierent omnia, non esse nisi Verbum 
Patris, per quod facta sunt omnia. Against the old opinion that the Father is absolutely 


invisible, and that the Logos alone can appear, see de Trin. ii. 15, ss. Cf. § 35: Ipsa- 


natura, vel substantia, vel essentia, vel quolibet alio nomine appellandum est id ipsum 
quod Deus est, quidquid illud est, corporaliter videri non potest: per subjectam vero 
creaturam non solum Filium vel Spiritam Sanctum, sed etiam Patrem corporali specie 
sive similitudine mortalibus sensibus significationem sui dare potuisse credendum est. 

1 Hence the contradictory opinions concerning him. . Epiphanius Haer. 64, c. 4, declares 
him to be the father of Arianism ; and Socrates, vii. 6, wonders how Timotheus could have 
been at the same time an admirer of Origen and an Arian, since Origen cuvaidiov rav- 
Taxow duohoyei Tov vidv TO warTpi. ; 

2 See Div. I..§ 63, note 18.. Compare Manscher’s Dogmengeschichte. Bd. 3. 8. 416, 
418, ff. 

-3 See Miinscher, 1. c. 8. 156, ff. 422, ff : 

* His biography, composed by his successor Acacius (Socrat. ii. 4), is lost He is called 


CHAP. IL—THEOL. I. ARIAN PERIOD. § 84. THEOL. SCIENCE. 315 


Athanasius, the father of orthodoxy, from the year 328° bishop 
of Alexandria, frequently banished and again recalled (t 373) ; re 
Basil the Great, from the year 370 bishop of Caesarea in Cap- 
padocia (t 379) ; ;° his brother Sreg ory, from 370 bishop of 
Nyssa 1 in Cappadocia (} about 394) ;" Gregory of Nazianzum, 
6 GedAoyoc, the intimate friend of Basil, bishop of Constantinople 


an Arian by Athanasius, Epiphanius, Hilary, Jerome, etc., defended by Socrat. ii. 21, and 
Gelasius Histor. Synod. Nic. ii.1. The first are followed by most historians, as Baronius, 
Petavius (Dogmat. theolog. de trin. lib. ii.c. 11), Arnold, Jac. Basnage, etc. On the contrary, 
he is declared to be orthodox by Valesius, Bull, du Pin, Sam. Basnage. There was a con- 
troversy on the subject between Jo. Le Clerc, who accuses him of Arianism (Bibliothéque 
univers. tom. x. p. 380. Epistolae criticae s. Artis. criticae, vol. iii. p. 28, ss.), and W. 
Cave, who, on the other hand, defends him (Diss. de Eusebii Arianismo in the append. ii. 
Hist. literar. script. eecl. p. 42, and Epist. apolog. ibid. p. 61, ss.) A more correct opinion 
is given by Chr. D. A. Martini Eusebii Caes. de Divinitate Christi sententia. Rostoch. 
1795. 4. J. Ritter Eusebii Caes. de Divinitate Christi placita. Bonnae. 1823. 4. Writ- 
ings: Hist. eccl. lib. x. Chronicon s. ravtodany loropia (ex. vers. Armen. ed. J. Bapt. 
Aucher. _Venet. 2 t. 1818. 4. Ang. Majus et J. Zohrab. Mediol. 1818. 4, integrius et 
emendatius ed. Ang. Majus in Scriptt. vet. nova coll., tom. viii. Romae. 1833.4). TIpo- 
Tmapackevn evayyedtky libb..15, ed. F. Vigerus. Paris. 1628. fol. F. A. Heinichen. 2 t. 
Lips. 1842. 8. Evayyedrxy arddeiéte lib. 20 (of this lib. i-x. ed. Par. 1628. foh The 
beginning of the first and close of the tenth book, which are there wanting, have been 
supplied by J..A. Fabricius in his Delectus argumentorum et syllabus scriptt. qui veritatem 
relig. christ. adseruerunt. Hamb, 1725. 4. p. 1, ss.). Contra Hieroclem liber (C. Gu. 
Haenell de Euseb. Caes. religionis christ. defensore. Gottingae. 1843. 8). Contra Mar- 
cellum libb.2. De Ecelesiastica theologia libb. 3 (all appended to the Demonstr. evangel.} 
Tlepit: rév romixGy év rH Oeia ypagy (cum. vers. Hieronymi ed. J. Clericus.. Amst. 1707. 
fol.) Oratio de laudibus Constantini. De vita Constantini lib. 4 (annexed to the Hist. 
eccl.). Canones sacr. Evangeliorum x. (in bibl. PP.) Comm. in Cant. Canticorum, in 
Psalmos, in Esaiam. Eclogae propheticae e cod. Vindebon. primum ed. Thom. Gaisford. 
Oxon. 1842. 8. Cf. Fabricii Bibl. Gr. ed. Harles. vol. vii. p. 335, ss. , 

5 See particularly "Azodoyytixd¢g Kata ’ApecavGy (about 349). ’Amohoyia xpo¢ tov 
Baotréa Kovordytiov (356). ’Arodoyia repi tHe Gvyq¢ abTod (357). "ExiotoAs toic Tov 
uovipn Biov doxover 8. historia Arianoram ad Monachos (358).. Kara ’Apecavdv Adyos 0'* 
"EmoroAy rept TOV yevouévor év TH’ Apimivy THe Iradiac Kal év Ledeveia tig "loavpiac 
ovvédur (359), ete. Opp. ed Bern. de Montfaucon. . Paris. 1698. 3 t. fol. N. A. Justiniani. 
Patav. 1777. 4 t. fol. _ Cf. Fabricius-Harles, viii. 171. J. A. Mohbler’s Athanasius d. G. u. 
die Kirche seiner Zeit. 2 Th. Mainz. 1827. 8. 

6 *Aytippntixd¢g Tod ’AtoAoynTLKOD TOD dvaceBoi¢ Edvoyiov libb. v. Tlept tot dyiov 
mvevpatog (comp. § 83, note 27). Homilies (C. Gu. van der Pot de Basilio M. oratore 
sacro. Amstel. 1835. 8. Paniel’s Gesch. d. christl. Beredsamkeit, i. 464). . Ascetic writ- 
ings, letters. Opp. ed. Fronto Ducaeus. | Paris. 1618. 2 voll. fol. Jul. Garnier. Par. 1721, 
ss. 3 voll. fol. ed. ii. cur. L. de Sinner. Paris. 1839. 3 tomi 8. A. Jahnii Animadversiones 
in S. Basilii M. opera: Bernae-et S. Galli. 1842, fasc.1. Cf. Fabricius-Harles, ix. 1.) J. 
E. Feisser Diss. de vita Basilii M.. Groningae. 1828. 8. . Basilius d. G. nach s. Leben u. 
s. Lehre dargestellt von Dr. C. R. W. Klose. _ Stralsund. 1835. 8. 

7 Karé Eivouiopr libb. xiii. Contra Apollinarem, see § 83, note 29. Ilepi ry¢ San uhiee. 
Abdyoc katnyntixoe 6 uéyac. (Oratio catechetica, rec.G.Krabinger. Acc. ejusdem Greg: 
orii_oratio fanebris in Meletium Episc. Antiochenum. .Monachii. 1835. 8). De anima et 
resurrectione (ed: Krabinger. 1837). De Precatione oratt. v. (ed. Krabinger. 1840). Re 
specting his homilies see Paniel, i. 520. Opp. ed. F.Morellius. Paris. 1615. 2 voll. Ap. 
pend. add. J. Gretser. Ibid. 1618. fol: Cf. Fabricius-Harles, ix. 98. argon des cp 
Nyssa Leben u. Memungen, von Dr. J. Rupp. Leipzig. 1834.8. _ 

-® The “Festal Letters” make this date certain. 


316 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 324-451. 


from 380-381 (t 390) ;° and Didymus, president of the cate- 
chetical school in Alexandria ({ 395).° Even toward the west 
also, where they were accustomed to derive their knowledge un- 
interruptedly from the Greek literature,'° Origen’s influence had 
extended, and the most important occidental writers of this. pe- 
riod, Hilary, bishop of Poictiers from a.p. 350, living an exile 
in Phrygia from 356-360 (t 368) ;" the Luciferian Hilary, dea- 
con in Rome (about 380),’* and Ambrose, bishop of Milan from 
374 (ft 397)," honored and employed him as a teacher. So 
also the two distinguished western monks living in Palestine, 
Tyrannius Rufinus of Aquileia,“ who had been six years a 
pupil of Didymus in Egypt, but, since the year 378, had led 
an ascetic life on the Mount of Olives (t 410), and Sophronius 
Eusebius Hieronymus of Stridon, the first scriptural expository 


8 Regarding his orations (among which must be particularly distinguished de Theologia 
oratt. v.), see Paniel,i.493. Letters, poems. Opp.ed. F.Morellius. Paris. 1630 (Colon., 
1690) 2 voll. fol. ed. Clemencet, tom. i. Paris. 1778. Tom. ii. ed: D.A. B. Caillau. Paris. 
1840. fol. Cf. Fabricius-Harles, viii. 383. Gregorius v. Nazianz, der Theologe, von D. C. 
Ullmann, Darmstadt. 1825. 8. 

“9 Respecting him see Guerike de Schola Alex. P.i. p. 92, ss. His biblical comment- 
aries, and his Comm. in libros Origenis zepi dpyv, are, with many other writings, ne 
longer extant. Still extant: Lib. de Spiritu S., according to the Latin version of Jerome 
(in Hieron. Opp. ed. Martian. t. iv. P.i. p. 494, ss.); lib. adv. Manichaeus (gr. et. lat. in 
Combefisii auctarium graec. PP. P. ii. p. 21, and in Canisii Lectt. ant. ed. Basnage. vol. 
i. p. 204, ss.); de Trinitate libb. iii. (prim. ed. J. A. Mingarelli. Bonon. 1769. fol.) ; brevis 
enatratio in epistt. canonicas, preserved, in the Latin translation composed at the request 
of Cassiodorus, by Epiphanius Scholasticus (see Cassiod. de Instit. div. scr. c. 8), among 
others in the Bibl. max. PP. t. iv. p. 319, ss., best of all in Licke Quaestiones ac vindiciae 
Didymianae. Gotting. 1829-32. 4 particulae. 4, where it is accompanied by the Greek 
text, partially restored from the Scholia of Matthaei. 

10 Paniel’s Gesch. d. christl. Beredsamkeit, i. 663. 

11 De Trinitate libb. xii. Ad Constantium lib. De Synodis adv. Arianos. De Synodis 
Ariminensi et Seleuciensi (fragments). Various commentaries. Of the comm. in 
Psalmos plurimos, Hieron. Cat. c. 100: In quo opere imitatus Origenem, nonnulla etiam 
de suo addidit : respecting the treatises no longer extant called tractatus in Job: quos de 
Graeco Origenis ad sensum transtulit, cf. Rosenmiiller Hist. interpret. libr. sacr. in eccl. 
christ. P. iii. p. 301, ss. Paniel, i. 697. Bahr’s christl. romische Theologie, 8.113. Opp. 
edd. Monachi PenEroy: wy Mauri (P. Coustant). Paris. 1693. Sc. Maffeus. Veron. 1730. 
2 voll. fol. 

12 The author of the Comins. in xiii. epistt. b. Pauli in the works of Ambrose (hence 
Ambrosiaster), and probably, too, of the Quaestiones vet. et novi test. in the works of 
Augustine (in the Appendix of tom. iii. P. ii. Benedictine edition). Comp. R. Simon 
Hist. crit. des principaux commentateurs du N. T. p. 133. 

13 De Officiis ministrorum libb. 3 (ed. Dr. R. O. Gilbert. Lips. 1839. 8). Hexaémeron 
{ed. Gilbert. Lips. 1840.8). De Fide libb. 5. De Spiritu Sancto libb. 3. A useless 
commentary on some of the Psalms, in Lucam libb. 10 (cf. Rosenmiiller 1. c. p. 315, ss.), 
Epistolae 92, etc. Opp. edd. Mon. Congreg. S. Mauri. Paris. 1686, 90. 2 voll. fol. Comp. 
Bahr, S. 142. 

1* Respecting his writings, see below, § 85, note 4. 


CHAP. IL—THEOL. I. ARIAN PERIOD. § 84. THEOL. SCIENCE. $17 


of his day, who lived at the head’of a society of —* in Beth- 
‘lehem from A.D. 386 (t 420).'8 

In addition to the Origenist school, the Syrian historico-exe- 
getical school in the east had many friends.'* To it belonged, 
among the Eusebians, Theodore, bishop of Heraclea ({ about 
358),'’ Eusebius, bishop of Emesa (+ 360), and Cyril, bishop 
of Jerusalem, who afterward adopted the decrees of the Nicene 
council, and was present at the council of Constantinople (381) 
(7 386).° Among the oriental Nicenians, Apollinaris, bishop 


7 


15 At that time Jerome wrote to Paula respecting Origen (Rufin. Invectiv. in Hieron. 
lib. ii. see Hieron. Opp. ed. Martianay, vol. iv. f. ii. p. 68 and 480): Quis enim unquamr 
tanta legere potuit, quanta ipse conscripsit: Pro hoc sudore, quid accepit pretii?’ Dam- 
natur a Demetrio episcopo: exceptis Palaestinae et Arabiae et Phoenices atque Achajae 
sacerdotibus in damnationem ejus consentit (add. orbis) : urbs Roma ipsa contra hunc cogit 
Senatumi, non propter dogmatum novitatem, non propter haeresin, ut nunc adversum euny 
tabidi canes simulant, sed quia gloriam eloquentiae ejus et scientiae ferre non poterant, et 
illo dicente omnes muti putabantur. See a notice of his writings in § 85, note 5. 

16 Cf. J. A. Ernesti Narratio crit. de interpretatione prophetiarum messian. in Opp. theol. 
p. 498, ss. EF’. Minter ber die antiochen. Schule in Staudlin’s and Tzschirner’s Archiv. 
f. Kirchengesch. i. i. 13. Caes. a Lengerke de Ephraemi Syri Arte hermeneutica liber. 

. Regimontii Pruss. 1831. 8. p. 60. 

11 Hieronymi Catal. c. 90: Theodorus Heracliae Thraciarum Episcopus, elegantis 
apertique sermonis, et magis historicae intelligentiae, edidit sub Constantio Principe 
commentarios in Matthaewm, et in Joannem, et in Apostolum, et in Psalterium. The 
commentary on the Psalms in Corderis Catena in Psalmos. Antv. 1643: other exegetical 
fragments in the Catenae. The most are to be found in Corderii Catena in Matthaeum- 
Antverp. 1642, H. F. Massmann (Skeireins, Auslegung, d. Ev. Joh. in goth. Sprache 
Miinchen. 1834. 4) considers the fragments published by him to be the remains of a Gothic 
version of Theodore’s commentary on John. Of a contrary opinion Dr. Julius Loebe 
Beitrage zur Textberichtigung u. Erklarung der Skeireins. Altenburg. 1839. 8. S. 4. 

8 Respecting him see Socrates, ii. 9, and Sozomenus, iii.6. Both say of him: 'Yréuewve 
62 Kai atric péunpiy, Oe Ta DaBeA2Aiov épovdv. On the contrary, he is called in Jerome 
in Chron. ad ann. x. Constantii: Arianae signifer factionis. Cf. Hieron. Cat. c. 91; 
Eusebius Emesenus Episcopus, elegantis et rhetorici ingenii, innumerabiles, et qui ad 
plausum populi pertinent, confecit libros, magisque historiam secutus, ab his qui decla- 
mare volunt, studiosissime legitur: e quibus vel praecipui sunt adv. Judaeos, et Gentes, 
et Novatianos, et ad Galatas libb. x., et in Evangelia homiliae breves sed plurimae. His 
exegetical character is more distinctly drawn, c. 119 (see below, note 22). Thilo (iiber die 
Schriften des Eusebius v. Alexandrien u. d. Eusebius v. Emesa. Halle. 1832. 8) shows 
that the three discourses published by Augusti (Euseb. Emes. quae supersunt Opuscula. 
Elberfeldi. 1829. 8) do not belong to Eusebius of Emesa, but, along with many others, to 
one Eusebius of Alexandria, belonging to the fifth or sixth century (an old life of this 
Alexandrian and several discourses are extant in the Spicilegium Romanum, t. ix. -_Romae. 
1843. 8). Among the extant writings of Eusebius of Emesa (on them see Thilo, p. 56), the 
Most important would be the two books de fide adv. Sabelliam in the Opuscula, xiv: 
Eusebii Pamph. ed. J. Sirmond, Paris. 1643 (also in Bibl. PP. Lugd. iv. 1), if it could be 
proved that they really belong to him. Thilo makes it probable, p. 64. 

*® Catecheses xviii. ad Competentes, Catecheses mystagogicae v., probably delivened 
in the year347 (their authenticity has been denied especially by Oudinus de Scriptt. eccl. 
ant. vol. i. p. 459, ss.), but proved by Touttée (in the Dissert. Cyrill. p. xciii. prefixed to his 
edition), ed. Th. Milles. Oxon. 1703. fol. A. A. Touttée. Paris. 1720. fol. Comp. J.J. van 


318 ©. (SECOND. PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D, 324-451, 


of Laodicea (between 370 and 390),”? known by: his heresy re- 
specting the person of Christ; Ephraem, deacon in Edessa, the 
prophet of the Syrians (+ 378) ; ;* and Diodore, presbyter in 
Antioch, bishop of Tarsus from 378 (+ before 394), were at-— 
tached to it. From the school of the latter proceeded John Chrys-' 
ostom, deacon from 381, 386 presbyter in Antioch, from 398 bishop 
of Constantinople (+ 407),*3 and Zhcodore, preshyter in Antioch, 


Vollenhoven Spec. theol. de Cyrilli Hier. catechesibus., Amstelod. 1837. 8. Paniel’s 
Gesch. der christl. Beredsamkeit, i. 419. Against the Semiarianism of the saint, which is 
acknowledged by Touttée Dissertt. Cyrill. p. xi. ss. (which Epiphanius Haer. lxxiii. c. 28, 
alse expressly attests) appeared the Jesuit Mémoires de Trevoux (mois de Dec. 1721), but 
they were refuted by (Prudentius Maranus) Diss. sur les Sémiariens. Paris. 1722, 8, 
. reprinted in Vogt Bibl. hist. haeresiolog. ii. 115. Respecting his exposition of Scripture 
in the Catecheses, see Catech. xiii. c. 9: ZuveAnribauev; yap, od. ypagav é&pynow 
Gewpnrixny rothoacOat viv, GAAd-mioToroinORvar uaAAov repi Gv mentoTrebKapuer. Cf. 
Fabricius-Harles, viii. 437. Tzschirner Opuse. acad. p. 253, ss. v. Célln in Ersch u. Gruber’s 
Encyclopadie, xxii. 143. ; 

20 His writings (adv. Porphyrium, libb. xxx., contra Eunomium, etc.) are all lost. Many 
of his interpretations of Scripture are preserved in the Catenae.  Philostorgius ap. Suidam, 
s. v. Apollinaris prefers him to Basil and Gregory of Nazianzum: Odro¢ yap 07 Kal Tipe 
‘EBpaidoc diadéxrov ératerv ol6¢ te Hv. Cf. Fabricius-Harles. vol. viii. p. 588, ss. 

21 Homilies (cf. Tzschirner Opusc. acad. p. 262, ss.), Ascetic writings, Hymns. Par- 
ticularly important are his Syriac commentaries on the Old Testament. Cf. Caesar a 
Lengerke Comm. crit. de Ephraemo Syro 8. 8. interprete. Halis. 1828. 4. Ejusd. de 
Ephr. Syri Arte hermeneutica lib. Regimontii Pruss. 1831. 8. Paniel’s Gesch. d. christl. 
Beredsamkeit, i. 438. Opp. graeca et syr. ed. St. Evod. Assemanus. Romae. 1732-45. 
6 voll. fol. Cf. Fabricius-Harles. vol. viii. p. 217, ss. 

22 Hieron. Cat..c.119: Diodorus Tarsensis Episcopus, dum Antiochiae esset presbyter, 
magis claruit. Extant ejus in Apostolum commentarii, et multa alia, ad Eusebii magis 
Emeseni characterem pertinentia: cujus cum sensum secutus sit eloquentiam imitari non 
potuit propter ignorantiam saecularium litterarum. © Socrat. vi. 3: IloAAd BiBAia ovvé- 
ypabe, WAS TO yodupatt Tv Oeiwy mpooéxwv ypagddr, Tag Oewpiac abtav éxtperduevoc. 
For his orthodoxy, which was afterward called in question, see Facundi Ep. Hermianensis 
(about 548) pro defensione trium Capitulorum lib. iv. c. 2. His writings, which have been 
all lost, and among them commentaries on most of the biblical books, whose loss must be 
chiefly regretted, are enumerated by Theodore Victor ap. Suidas, s. v. Avédwpoc, and by 
Ebedjesu in Assemani Bibl. orient. iii. i.28. Cf. Fabricius-Harles, ix. 278, ss. Fragments 
are found in Marius Mercator, Photius (Cod. 122) and others. Among the Chaldean 
Christians, who held him in great repute (see Assemani, iii. ii. 224), many of his writings 
may have been preserved in translation. 

23 Although he had been previonsly distinguished by similar honorable surnames (thus 
he is called in Proclus, bishop of Constantinople after 437, mepi mapadécewe Ti¢ Osiac 
Aetroupyiac, in Gallandii Bibl. PP. ix. 681: 6 rHv yAdrrav xpvooi¢ "lwdvvne), yet the 
surname Chrysostom first occurs in Johannes Moschus (about 630) pratum spirit. c. 131, 
and is generally employed after Concil. vi. in the year 680. His works are: Orations, 
among which the homilies on the New Testament writings are also of exegetical import- 
ance. Comp. Des Joh. Chrys. auserwahlte Homilien (vy, d. Unbegreiflichkeit Gottes, 5 
Hom. wider die Anomoer (iibers. u. mit emer Hinleit. itber Joh. Chrys. den Homileten 
von Dr. Ph. Mayer. Nurnberg. 1830. Paniel’s Gesch. d. christl. Beredsamkeit, i. 590. 
Ascetic writings, letters.. Ilepi iepwovvye libb. vi. (ed. J. A. Bengel. Stuttg. 1725. 8. 
ibers. v. K. F. Hasselbach. Stralsund. 1820. 8. von. J. Ritter. Berlin. 1821. 8). Opp. ed. 
B. de Montfaucon, Paris. 1718-38. 13 voll. fol. ed. 2. emendata et aucta. Paris. 1834-39. 


CHAP. Il—THEOL. 1) ARIAN PERIOD. § 84. THEOL. SCIENCE. 319 


from 393 bishop of Mopsuestia (+ 429),’* the most eminent ex- 
egetical writer of the Syrian school. 

The difference of the exegetical principles of the two Aes 
gave expression to itself even in controversial writings.”? This 
dispute however had an entirely scientific character, and did not 
prevent them recognizing each other’s merit. As the Origenist 
Jerome made diligent use of the interpreters of the Syrian school, 
so also Origen for the most part stood in high estimation with 
the Syrians."® But small traces of doctriaal controversies are 


13 Tomi. 8. Cf: Fabricius-Harles, viii. 454. A. Neander der h. Joh. Chrysostomus u. d. 
Kirche bes. des. Orients in dessen Zeitalter. Berlin. 1821, 22. 2 Bde. 8. 

24 His noted biblical commentaries have been unfortunately lost with the rest of his 
writings, except some fragments. Recently, complete works of his have been published 
in the original. See Comm. in Prophetas, xii. minores taken from a Vienna MS. in: 
Theod. Antiocheni Mopsv. Episc. quae supersunt omnia, ed... A. F. V. a Wegnern, vol. i. 
Berol. 1834. 8. from a Vatican MS. in A. Maji Scriptt. vett. nova coll. t. vi. p. i. Romae. 
1832; and Comm. in epist, ad Romanos, edited by Angelo Mai in the Spicilegium 
Romanum, tom. iv. (Romae. 1840. § p. 499. The Chaldean Christians who call him, by 
way of eminence, the interpreter (Assemani, l. c. t. ili. P. ip. 36), and have declared in 
the decrees of councils his expositions to be a standard (Assem. I. c. t. iii. P. ii, p. 227), 
have still much of his in translations. A catalogue of his works by Ebedjesu ap. Assemani, 
iii. i. 30, ef. Fabricius-Harles, x. 346. R. E. Klener Symbolae literariae ad Theodorum 
Antiochenum Mopsvestiae Episc. pertinentes. Gotting. 1836. 8. O. F. Fritzsche de 
Theod. Mopsvesteni vita et scriptis comm. Halae. 1836. 8. Respecting Theodore as an 
interpreter, see Ernesti Opusc. theol. p. 502, ss. Rosenmiiller Hist. interpret. iii. 250. 
Minter in Staudlin’s und Tzschirner’s Archive f. K. Gi. i.17. FF. L. Sieffert Theodorus 
Mopsy. veteris Test. sobrie interpretandi vindex comm. Regiomonti. 1827. 8. Comp. 
among the accusations of Leontius against Theodore (in Gallandii Bibl. PP. xii. 686, s.): 
xii. aggreditur—gloriam Spiritus Sancti, cum omnes quidem scripturas altas, quas sancti 
afflatu ejus tradiderunt, humiliter et demisse interpretans, tum vero. a numero sacracum 
scripturaram—eas separans. xiv. Epistolam Jacobi et alias deinceps alioram catholicas 
abrogat et antiquat. xv. Inscriptiones Hymnorum, et Psalmorum, et Canticorum penitus 
ejecit, et omnes Psalmos judiace ad Zorobabelem et Ezechiam retulit, tribus tantum ad 
Dominum rejectis. xvi. Immo et sanctorum sanctissimum Canticum Canticoruam—libidinose 
pro sua et mente et lingua meretricia interpretans, sua supra modum incredibili audacia 
ex libris sacris abscidit. xvii. Duos libros Paralipomenon—et insuper Esdram repudiavit. 

25 The Origenists endeavored, after the example of Origen to prove the insufficiency 
of the grammatical interpretation, and the necessity of the allegorical. For example 
Gregorius Nyssenus Prooem. in Cant. Cant., Jerome in many places. On the other side 
wrote Theodore according to Suidas s. v. A1ddwpoc’ ti¢ dtagopad Bewpiac Kai GAAnyopiac. 
Comp. on this treatise Ernesti Opuse. theol. p. 499. Still more energetically did Theodore 
of Mopsuestia attack the Origenists (Facundas, iii. c. 6): in libro de allegoria et historia, 
quem contra Origenem scripsit, unde et odium Origenianorum incurrit. Ebedjesu cites _ 
among Theodore’s works quinque tomos adv. Allegoricos (Assemani, iii. i. 34, cf. p. 19). 

6 So with the author of the ’Aroxpicere mpd¢ Todc dpH0d6Sove in Justin Martyr’s works, 
who belongs to Syria, about the year 400 (D. W. Gass Abhandlung tber diese Schrift, in 
Illgen’s Zeitschr. f. d. hist. Theol. 1842. iv. 34. Comp. S. 143, 103), and with Chrysostom 
(see Ernesti Opuse. theol. P- 512, and the programm by J. W. Meyer de Chrysostomo 
literarum sacr. interprete, p. i. Altorf. 1806.8. De Ch.1.s. i. ejusque interpretandi modo 
in V. T. libris hist. obvio. Norimb. 1806. 8. Nova comm. de Chr. 1. s. i. p. ii. Erlang. 
1814, 15. 4, respecting his exposition of the poetical books of the Old Testament), 


820 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D. 324-451. 


now to be found between the two schools.” Those orthodox 
Origenists did not adopt all the peculiar doctrinal sentiments of 
their master; nor were these doctrines all-reckoned damnable. 
A pretty wide field for free investigation was still left to reason,” 
and the passion with which the question of the relation of the 
Son to the Father was discussed, made this doctrine so much 
the test of orthodoxy, almost indeed exclusively so, that they 
never ‘thought during the Arian controversy of limiting freedom 
of inquiry on other subjects. Gregory of Nyssa”® and Didymus* 
were known as Origenists. Many others held to single points 
of Origen’s creed*! without being attacked on that account. 
Chalcidius* and Synesius came to adopt still more remarkable 
opinions by joining new-Platonism with Christianity ; yet the 
latter was consecrated bishop of Ptolemais by Theophilus, bishop 
of Alexandria, although he gave public expression to his con- 
victions (410).** The belief in the inalienable capability of 


27 Theophili Alex. lib. paschalis, i. Hieronymo interprete (Hier. Opp. ed. Martian. t. iv. 
P. ii. p.694): Licet (Apollinaris) adversus Arianos, et Eunomianos scripserit, et Origenem, 
aliosque haereticos sua disputatione subverterit, tamen, etc. So Apollinaris also defended 
millennarianism in a work 7epi dvacrdcewc. Basil. Ep. 263. (al. 74) § 4, Hieron. Prooem. 
in libr. xviii. Jesaiae. Epiph. Haer. lxxvii. § 36. ; 

28 Gregor. Naz. Orat. 33 (de Theol. i.) in fine: @iAocdg¢er wor wept Kdcuov 7 KéopnwY, 
mept bAnc, Tept Wuxie, wept AoytKOv gicewy Beatidver te Kal yetpovav, wepl dva- 
otdoews, Kpicews, dvtarodécews, Xpiotod TaOyuadrov- Ev tobroue yap Kal 7d éritvy- 
xavew odk &xpyotov, Kal TO diauapravery dkivdvvov. Even in the west the doctrine 
of the pre-existence of souls was not yet regarded as heretical. Augustine de Libero 
arbitrio, iii. 21: Harum autem quatuor de anima sententiarum, utrum de propagine 
veniant, an in singulis quibusque nascentibus novae fiant, an in corpora nascentium jam 
alicubi existentes vel mittantur divinitus, vel inde sua sponte labantur, nullam temere 
affrmare oportebit.. Cf. Hieron. Epist. 126 (al. 82), ad Marcellinam et Anapsychiam. 

29 See Jo. Dallaeus de Poenis et Satisfactionibus humanis (libb. vii. Amst. 1649. 4); lib. 
iv. c. 7, p.368, ss. Miinscher’s Dogmengesch. iv. 439, 465. Wundemann’s Gesch. d. christl. 
Glaubenslehren, ii. 463. ltupp’s Gregor v. Nyssa, 8. 243. 

30 On this theology see Guerike de schola Alex: P. ii. p. 332, ss., especially on the pre- 
existence of souls, p. 361, and the possible conversion of the devil, p. 359, 368, especially 
Liicke Quaestiones ac vindiciae Didymianae P.i. p. 9, ss. Against the former, Gregory 
of Nazianzum declares himself very decidedly (see Ullmann, p. 414, ff). 

31 The doctrine of Hilary regarding the humanity of Christ, de trin. x., was made up from 
the opinions of Clement of Alexandria and Origen. See my Comm., qua Clementis. Alex. 
et Origenis doctrinae de corpore Christi exponuntur. Gotting. 1837. 4; that of C. Marius 
Victorinus philos. (about 368) in Comm. in ep. ad phes. i. 4 (Maji Scriptt. vett. nova col- 
substantia in aeternis semper extiterint, is Origenistic. 

32 Cf. Chale. Comm: in Timaeum Platonis in Hippolyti Opp. ed. Fabricius, ii. 225 
Mosheim ad Cudworth Syst. intell: p. 732, regards him as a heathen syncretist. See on 
the other side Fabricii:bibl. lat. i. 556, Brucker Hist. philos. iii. 477. 

33 Synesius Ep. 105, ad fratrem Euoptium announces why he felt it a hazardous thing 
to assume the office of a bishop, which had been offered him. Among other things, it is 


CHAP.\II—THEOL, I. ARIAN PERIOD. | § 84. THEOL. SCIENCE. 301 


improvement in all rational beings, and the limited duration of fu- 
ture punishment™ was so general even in the west and among 
the opponents of Origen,® that, even if it may not be said to have 
arisen without the influence of Origen’s school, it had become en- 
tirely independent of his system. On the other hand, millenna- 
rianism, although it had been abandoned by most theologians, had 
still many friends among the people, without their being consid- 
ered as heretics on account of it.” 


- said: XaAerdév éorwy, ef uy kal Aiav ddbvarov, ele puxyy ta dv’ ExcotHung ei¢ dmddersey 
22O6vta déypata cahevOjvat’ oicba S btt TOAAa pRooogia Toi¢ Opvrdovpévore ToUToLg 
avridtatdtreras dyuacw. Guéhee Thy wex7yv obk dsiéo@ wore oauaroc barepoyevy 
vouiterv: Tov KéoMov ov ofow Kai TaéAda uEpn ovvdiagbeipecBar’ THY KaBapLAnuévgy 
dvaoraoty lepdv te Kal dxopAyrov hynuat, al ToAAdD déw Taic TOD TARBOovE dradijpeow 
éuoroyqoa.—F tote Sd0aApdot TO oKbTOC ObeAmuatepor, TaiTy Kai Td Weidog GgGEhog 
elvat tidepar Oque, Kal BAaBepov TH dAAOeLav Toi¢ ov« icxtoveww Evatevioas mpbE THY 


tov bvtwy évapyerav. ei Tadta Kai ol rig KAP jude lepwobvng ovyxwpovaty éuol vouoL, 


duvainnyv av lepaoOat, Ta wéev oiKoe grdoo0gav, Ta 8 &&w grAouvOdr.—odb BotAouar d2 
Kataheneiobai tia mepi Euod Aoyovr, Og dyvonbsic Hpxaca THY xetporoviay’ GAM eidas 6 

Jeogidéaratoc matnp GedgrA00, Kai O¢ ExiotaTat, cagéc yor TaLHoag, obTw BovAevedcbe 
mepl éuov- Cf. Evagrius, i. c. 15. Photius Cod. 26. Comp. Synesius des Kyreniers Rede 
an Arkadios, griesch. u. deutsch y. Krabinger. Minchen. 1825.8. Einl.§. xix.,ff.. Even 
when bishop, Synesius continued true to his philosophical system. Cf. Luc. Holstenii diss. 
de Synesio, in the app. of Theodoretus, etc., ed. Valesii, p. 202. Aem. Th. Clausen de 
Synesio philosopho, Libyae Pentapoleos metropolita. Hafniae. 1831. 8. 

34 Hieronymus ad Gal. v. 22: Nullam rationabilium creaturarum apud Deum perire 

perpetuo. Cf. ad Eph. iv. 16. Ambrosiaster in Eph. iii. 10. J. A. Dietelmair Commenti 
fanatici de rerum omnium ’Aroxataorioe: hist. antiquior. Altorfii. 1769. 8. p. 160, ss. 
. % Augustini Enchirid. ad Laurent. c. 112: Frustra nonnulli, immo quam plurimi, aeter- 
nam damnatorum ‘poenam et cruciatus sine intermissione perpetuos humano miserentur 
affectu, atque ita futurum esse non credunt: non quidem scriptaris divinis adversando, sed 
pro suo modo dura quaeque molliendo et in leniorem flectendo sententiam, quae putant in 
eis terribilius-esse dicta quam verius. Non enim obliviscetur, inquiunt, misereri Deus, aut 
continebit in ira sua miserationes suas. (Ps. lxxvii- 10). 


36 In Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, whose: expressions on the subject” 


have: been preserved by Salomo, bishop of Bassora (about 1222), in Assemani Bibl. Or. 
iii. i. 323. Respecting Theodore comp. Photii Cod. 81, Marius Mercator. p. 346, ed. Baluzii. 
37 Hieronymus Prooem. in lib. xviii..in Esaiam: Nec ignoro, quanta inter homines 


hs sententiarum diversitas sit. Non dico de mysterio trinitatis, cujus recta confessio est 


- jgnoratio scientiae : sed de aliis ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, de resurrectione scilicet, et de 


animarum et humanae carnis statu, de repromissionibus faturoram, quomodo debeant — 


accipi, et qua ratione intelligenda sit Apocalypsis Johannis, quam si juxta literam accipi- 


_* mus, judaizandum est; si spiritualiter, ut scripta est, disserimus, multorum veterum ‘ 
. videbimur opinionibus contraire, Latinorum Tertulliani, Victorini, Lactantii, Graecorum, 


_- ut caeteros praetermittam, Irenaci tantam Lugdunensis Episcopi faciam mentionem. 

- Adversum qnem vir eloquentissimus Dionysius Alexandrinae Ecclesiae Pontifex elegan- 

~ tem seribit librum,.irridens mille annoram fabulam—Cui duobus voluminibus respondit 

Apollinarius, quem non solum suae sectae homines, sed et nostrorum in hac parte 

at plurima sequitur multitudo, ut praesaga mente jam cernam, quantorum in me 

rabies concitanda sit. Cf. Idem. lib. iv. in Jeremiam (on Cap. 19): qua’ (millennarian 

opinions) ficet non sequamur, damnare tamen non possumus, quia multi ecclesiastiooram 

virorum et martyrum ista dixerunt. > + aeamaaieed in suo sensu abundet, et Domini cuncta 
reserventur judicio. 


vou. 1—21 


eee, 


322 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D. 324-451. 


A thorough. opposition between the RS sobiools was estab- 
lished by the circumstance that the Syrian school acknowledged 
Holy Scripture alone as the source of doctrine,** while the dis- 
ciples of Origen advocated their Gnostic tradition as a second 
source.*® But they did not attain to a scientific examination © 
of these two positions, since all scientific free movement in the 
province of theology was soon checked from another quarter. In 
the same degree as monachism prevailed, there spread also a 
prejudice against having any thing to do with worldly science 
and heathen writers.‘° By this means there was formed and 
strengthened a crowd of traditional theologians, who, inimical 
to all free inquiry, would endure no opinion which could not be 
pointed out in the fathers. _Epiphanius, bishop of Constantia 
in Cyprus, from the year 367 (+ 403),‘* may be regarded as the 
representative of this tendency. Even in his Panarion (Haer. 
63 and 64), he made himself known as a bitter enemy of 
Origen ; and when the Arian controversy was at an end, he 
began an open war against Origenism. While this contest put 
a stop to all free inquiry in the east, the western world was 
. contemporaneously bound in spiritual fetters by Augustine ; and 
free science every where banished from the church as a thing 
which causes mischief. 


38 Cyrilli Hieros. Cat. iv.c.17: Aet yap mepi Tév Beiwy nal dyiov Tie wioTews voty- 
piwv unde TO TUYOY dvEev TS Ociwy wapadidoobat ypaddrv, Kai uy dmwAGE TiBavéryor Kal 
Débyov Katackevaig mapagépecbar. Mydé éuol t6 taita cot Aeyovte GxAGe TicTEboye, 
éav tHv arddeckiv Tév KatayyeAAouévor xd Tov OetGv un AGBye ypadGv. So in many 
places of his catecheses. See Touttée Diss. ii. prefixed to his edition of Cyril, p. 129, s. 
In like manner, it is said in the work de fide (see above, note 18) lib. i. (Sirmondi Opp. i. 
11), which probably belongs to Eusebius Emesenus: Confitere ea, quae de Patre et Filio 
scripta sunt, et noli curiosius ea, quae non sunt scripta, requirere.—Utinam solis scripturis 
contenti essemus!-et lis nulla fiebat. Lib. ii. p. 20: Si quid scriptum’non est, ne quidem 
dicatur : si quid autem scriptum est, ne deleatur. . 

39 Comp. Div. I. § 63, note 4. Basilius de Spir. 8S. c. 27: Tov év TH 'Exxdqoig Tregu- 
Aaypévor doypitov Kai Knpvypdtov 7a uév éx tHe éyypdgov didacKahiac éyouev, Ta 6é 
éx Tig Tov "ArocTéAwy rapaddcewc Stadobévra ipiv év pvotnpiy mapedesaucba, imep 
dudétepa tiv abtiy icxyiy éxer zpd¢ THY ebocéBecay. Thus also Gregory of Nazianzum 
Orat. theol. v. § 1 (see § 83, note 27) could assume that the doctrine. of the Holy Spirit 
had now come over from the obscurity of gnostic tradition into faith (zicri¢). 

40 As it is expressed in the dream of Jerome, viz., that he was punished with stripes 
before the most high judge, because he had read Cicero too often (Hier. Epist. 22, ad Eus- 
tochium). Comp. Mimnscher’s Dogmengesch. iii. 47. 

4. His writings: ’Ayxupwré¢ s..de fide sermo. ITlavdépiov s. adv. haereses.—Opp, ed. 
D. Petavius. Paris. 1622. (Colon. 1682.) 2 voll. fol. 4) 


CHAP. 11.—THEOLOGY.. Ii. § 85. ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 323 


I. PERIOD OF THE ORIGENISTIC AND PELAGIAN CONTROVERSIES. 


§ 85, 


ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSIES. 


Walch’s Hist. d. Ketzereien. Th. 7. S. 427, ff 


Shortly after the termination of the Arian controversies, Pales- 
tine was the chief seat of Origen’s followers. Among them the 
most distinguished were John, bishop of Jerusalem (386-417), 
and the two monks, Rujinus and Jerome. Here Epiphanius. 
made his appearance in the year 394, and demanded with zeal 
the condemnation of Origen. John and Rufinus resisted him : 
while Jerome, who was anxiously alive to his orthodoxy, yielded, 
and broke off communion with the church of Jerusalem.’ By 
the efforts of Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, he was indeed 
induced to renew it, 397. In the mean time, in the same year, 
Rufinus went back to Rome, and endeavored, by a revised trans- 
lation of the writings of Origen,’ which were as yet little known, 
to procure a more favorable opinion of him in the west. By 
this means a violent controversy was created between him and 


-1 Cf. Kimmel de Rufino Eusebii interprete (Gerae. 1838). p. 57. Hieronymi lib. ad 
Pammachium contra Joann. Hieros. (ap. Martianay Epist. 38). Here the following erro- 
neous doctrines are attributed to Origen (comp. Div. I. § 64, note 15): 1. In libro zepi 
dpyGr (i. 1. § 8) loquitur: Sicut enim incongruum est dicere, quod possit filius videre 
patrem, ita inconveniens est opinari, quod spiritus s. possit videre filium, 2. quod in hoc 
corpore quasi in carcere sunt animae religatae, et, antequam homo fieret in paradiso, inter 
rationales creaturas in ‘coelestibus commoratae sunt, 3. quod dicat, et diabolum et dae- 

mones acturos poenitentiam aliquando, et cum sanctis ultimo tempore regnaturos, 4. quod 
‘ taunicas pelliceas humana corpora interpretetur, quibus post offensam et ejectionem de 
paradiso Adam et Eva induti sunt, 5. quod carnis resurrectionem, membrorumque com- 
pagem, et sexum, quo viri dividimur a foeminis, apertissime neget, 6. quod sic Paradisum, — 
allegorizet, ut historiae auferat veritatem, pro arboribus angelos, pro fluminibus virtutes . 
coelestes intelligens, totamque paradisi continentiam tropologica interpretatione subvertat, 
7. quod aquas, quae super caelos in scripturis esse dicuntur, sanctus supernasque virtutes ; 
quae super terram et infra terram, contrarias et daemoniacas esse arbitretur, 8. quod 
imaginem et similitudinam dei, ad quam homo conditus fuerat, dicit ab eo perditam, et in 
hhomine post paradisum non fuisse. 

2 Anastasii I. Epist. ad Joh. Hierosol. a.p. 401 (ap. Coustant, p. 719): Origines: autem, 
cujus in nostram linguam [Rufinus] composita derivavit, antea et quis fuerit, et in quae 
processerit verba, nostrum propositum [studium’] nescit: Augustini Ep. ad Hieron. 
40: Illud de. pradentia doctrinaque tua desiderabam, et adhue desidero, ut nota nobis 
facias ea is sg =_ ‘[Origenis] ‘errata, quibus a fide veritatis ile vir tantus recessisse con- - 
vincitar. 








324 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 324-451. 


Jerome.’ Origen, however, having been condemned in Egypt, 
Anastasius, bishop of Rome, condemned him also. Rufinus 
retreated to Aquileia, and continued his meritorious services in 
the translation of Greek works (¢ 410). Jerome, on the other 
hand, gained for himself great merit by his continued labors on 
the translation of the Bible into Latin, and his commentaries 
(t 420).° 

Soon after these controversies m Palestine, the ambitious and 
violent Zheophilus, bishop of Alexandria (385-412), came forth . 
‘as the enemy of Origen.* The Nitrian monks were divided into 
two parties, the Origenists and the Anthropomorphists. Moved 
by personal hatred to some individuals of the first, and afraid 
of the fanaticism of the latter, Theophilus caused Origen to be 
condemned (399, 400),? then demanded the most noted bish- 
ops to do the same, and persecuted,® with the greatest cruel- 


3 Rafini Praefatio ad Orig. wept dpyav—(Pammachii et Oceani Ep. ad Hieron. ap 
Martianay Ep. 40, ap. Vallarsi Ep. 83). Hieronymus ad Pammachium et Oceanum de 
erroribus Origenis (Martian. Ep. 41, Vallarsi Ep. 84.)—Rufini Apologia s. invectivarum in 
Hieronym. libb. ii—Hieronymi Apologia adv. Rufinum libb. ii—(Rufmi, Ep. ad Hieron. 
lost).—Hieronymi Responsio s. Apologiae 1. iii., cf. Kimmel de Rufino, p. 64. 

4 Origenes libb. repi dpyav gt homiliae, Pamphili apol. pro Origene, Josephi Opp.— 
Eusebii Hist. Ecel—Clementis Recognitiones—Basilii M. et Gregor. Naz. Opp. non- 
nulla.—Vitae Patrum. Besides Expositio symboli apostolici, Hist. Eccl. libb. ii, Comm. 
in Hoseam, Joel, caet—Comp. Jo. Franc. B. Mar. de Rubeis Monumenta eccl. Aguile- 
jensis. -Argentinae. 1740. wl, p- 80, ss. Idem de Turannio s. Tyrannio Rufino. Venetiis. 
1754. 

5 Revision of the Latin Ganiletion of the New Testament (cf, Epistola ad Damasum s. 
Hieron. in Evangelistas ad Damesum praef.).—Psalteriuam Romanum (382).—Psalterium 
Gallicanum :—New Translation of the Old Testament (385—405).—_Comm. in Ecclesiasten, 
Prophetas, in Evang. Matthaei, in ep. ad Galatas, Ephesios, ad Titum, ad Philemonem.— 
Catalogus script. eccles. 4.D. 392 (in J. A. Fabricii Biblioth. eccles. Hamb. 1718. fol.). In 
terpretatio nominum. Hebraicorum (388).—Polemic works: adv. Helvidium, Jovinianum, 
Vigilantium, Luciferianos, Pelagianos, caet—Letters, translations: Euseb. de Situ et 
Nominibus locorum Hebr. (gr. et lat. ed. J. Clericas. Amst. 1707, fol.), Chronicon. Origenis 
Homil. ii. in Cant. Cant—Letters of Theophilus and Epiphanius. Opp. ed. Jo, Martianay. 
Paris. 1693-1706, t. 5. fol. Dom. Vallarsi. Veron. 1734—42,* voll. xi. fol. with single im- 
provements. Venetiis. 1762-72, t. xi. 4—Jerome’s Life by John Stilting. (Act. SS. Sept. 
t. viii. p. 413, ss.), best of all by Vallarsi, in tom. xi. of his edition. Comp. vy. Célln in Ersch 
and Gruber’s Encyclop. Sect. ii. Th. 8. S. 72. 

& Sources for the following history: Palladii Episc. Helenopolit. Dial. de vita S. Joh. 
Chrysostomi (prim. graece ed. Emer. Bigot. Paris. 1680. 4, in Chrysost. Opp. ed. Mont- 
faucon, t. 13). Socrates, vi. 3-28. Sozomenus, viii. 7-20.—Joh. Stilting de 8. Chrysostomo 
Comm. historicus, in Act. SS. Sept. t. iv. p. 401, ss: Neander’s Chrysostomus, ii. 163. 

1 Theophilus, according to Palladius ap. Montfaueon, xiit. 20, had the distinguishing sur- 
name ’” 

‘8 Theophili Epist. synodalis (rather encyclica) ex vers. Hieronymi, first edited from an 
Ambrose MS. by Vallarsi (Hier. Opp. vol. i. Epist. 92. Mansi Conc. coll. t. iii. p. 979). 
The judgment of Postumianus ap. Sulpic. Sever. Dial. i. c. 6, 7, is more moderate —The 
disgustfal triumphing of Jerome Ep. ad Theophilum (Martianay, Ep. 57. Vallarsi, Ep 


CHAP. II —THEOLOGY. Il. § 85. ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 325 


ties, the monks who had adopted the peculiar views of Origen. 
These unfortunate persons repaired at last to Constantinople, 
where John Chrysostom of Antioch had been bishop, contrary to 
the wishes of ‘Theophilus,® since 398, as much beloved by the 
better part of his clergy as he was Hated by the more corrupt, 
by the luxurious court, and the empress Eudoxia. ‘Theophilus 
directed his deadly hatred against Chrysostom, because the latter 
received the banished, and made representations to ‘Theophilus 
on their behalf, and because by their complaints they procured 
from the emperor a summons commanding the bishop of Alex- 
andria to appear in person at Constantinople before Chrysostom. 
After some delay, Theophilus appeared in Constantinople (403), 
and there succeeded in uniting the foes of Chrysostom, in pro- 
euring false accusers, and causing sentence of deposition and exile 
to be pronounced upon him at a synod (Syn. ad. Quereum).’* It 
is true Chrysostom had to be recalled in a few days, on account 
of an uproar among the people, but he was as quickly displaced, 
chiefly through the influence of Eudoxia,’' and died in exile at 
Pontus ({f 407).'? Though the Romish bishop Innocent greatly 
condemned these acts of violence, he could not succeed in bring- 
ing Theophilus to aceount.'* In consequence of such conduct, 


86): Breviter scribimus, quod totas mundus exultet, et in tuis victoriis glorietur, erectum- 
que Alexandriae vexillum crucis, et adversus haeresin trophaea fulgentia gaudens popu- 
Jorum, turba perspectet. Macte virtute, macte zelo fidei! Ostendisti, quod hucusque 
taciturnitas dispensatio fuit, non consensus. Libere enim Reverentiae tuae loquor. 
Dolebamus te nimium esse patientem, et ignorantes magistri gubernacula, gestiebamus 
in interitum perditorum: sed, ut video, exaltasti manum diu, et suspendisti plagam, ut 
ferires fortius. Jerome translated into Latin all the writings that appeared against the 
rigenists (in particular Theophili Libri paschales, iii., with a new catalogue of Origen’s 
heresies}. These translations, with the correspondence between Jerome and Theophilus, 
are most fully given in Vallarsi, vol. i. Ep. 96, ss. How little Theophilus acted on this 
occasion according to his conviction is proved even by his subsequent conduct to Synesius. 
See § 84, note 33. 

§ Socrates, vi.2. Palladius, p. 18. 

20 An extract from the Acts of this Synod is given in Photii Bibl. cod. 59. 

“1. Beginning of a sermon of Chrysostom (according to Socrat. vi. 18. S0zom. viii. 20}: 
Tad ‘Hpadiac¢ patverat, nGéAw tapdcoetal, méAw dpyeitar, rédAw ext xivake Sng 
Aegadjy ladvvov (ntet AaBeiv. 

12 Chrysostom’s own account of the events in Constantinople, Ep. ad Innocentium I. 
A.D. 404 ap. Palladius Ep. ad eundem, from exile a.p. 407 (both in Constant. Innoc. P. 
Epist. 4 et 11). Isidore, abbot in Pelusium, passed a judgment on these ‘proceedings soon 
after Chrysostom’s death (lib. i: Epist. 152): ‘H yeitov Aiyurroc ovviGac qvéunce, Mo- 
ota Kapatovpévy, Tov Papad oiketovpévn—Tov Alowarva Kai ypvooAdtpyy mpoBario- 


utvn OebguAov, récoapar ovvepyoic, }) uaAov ovvarooTératc dyvpwbévta, Tov BeogeAy 


«ai Geodayoy KareroAéunoev dvOpwrov RAN olxoc AaBid kpararodtar, dobevet Ae d 
vob Daova. . 


23 His epistles and those of Honorius are in Mansi Conc. coll. iii. 1095. 


tse 


326. SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I1—A.D. 324+45h 


Rome broke off all church communion with Constantinople’; and 
in the latter city itself, a great part of the church remained 
faithful to Chrysostom (Johannites), and kept themselves apart 
from. his successors, whom they looked upon as intruders, until 
the wrong that had been done ‘to him was atoned by the solemn 
bringing back of his bones (438). 


§ 86. 
CONTROVERSIES WITH HERETICS IN THE WEST. 


During the. Arian disturbances, the Manichaeans had been 


silently spreading in the west, because for the most part they 


conformed externally to the catholic church. In Spain, they 
coincided with the Gnostics,! and from contact with them arose 
the doctrine with which Priscillian (about 379) came forth in 
Spain.? His most violent opponents, the bishops Idacius and 
Ithacius, first obtained the condemnation of his doctrines at the 
synod of Caesaraugusta (380) ; and next they prevailed on the 
usurper Maximus to put him to death at Treoes (385.) The 


1 Jerome often alludes to the eeendine of Basilides’s followers into Spain (Comm. in. 
Esaiam lib. xyii. ad Es. lxiy. 4, Ep. 120, ad Hedibiam: Basilidis Haeresin et Iberas-nae- 
nias. Prolog. in Genesin: Iberae naeniae. Comm. in Amos. ce. 3: Iberae ineptiae), and 
in Ep. 53 ad Theodoram derives the doctrine of Priscillian from him. With him agrees 
Sulpic. Severus,.ii. 46, representing Priscillian’s doctrine as derived from Egypt (infamis 
illa Gnosticorum haeresis), as first brought to Spain by one Marcus, a native of Memphis, 
communicated by him’to Agape and Helpidius, and as having come through them to 
Priscillian. It is not denied hereby that a new development of doctrine originated with 
Priscillian, and it is expressly acknowledged by others that Manichaeism had an influence 
upon it. The emperor Maximus, in Ep. ad Siricium ap. Baronius 387, no. 66, calls the 
Priscillianists nothing more nor less than Manichaeans ; Hieronymus Ep. 43, ad Ctesiphon- 
tem, calls Priscillian partem Manachaei; Augustinus Ep. 36 ad Casulan, says that the 
Priscillianists were very like the Manichaeans, and de Haeres. c.70: Maxime Gnosticoram 
et Manichaeorum dogmata permixta sectantur. Phere were many, however, who were 
inclined to perceive orthodox doctrine under a strange garb. Hieronymus Catal. c. 121: 
Priscillianus a nonnullis gnosticae, i.e., Basilidis et Marcionis Beisteetg accusator, defen- 
dentibus aliis, non ita eum sensisse ut arguitur. 

2 His history Sulpic. Sever. Hist. sacr. ii. 46-51, who ealls the abbas Gnosticorum 
haeresis. Something of their doctrine, but unsatisfactory, is found in P. Orosii Consultatia 
s. Commonitorium ad Augustinum de errore Priscillianistaram et Origenistarum, and in 
Leonis M. Epist. 93 ad Turibium Episc. Asturic. Priscilliani canones (doctrinal conse- 
quences) ad S. Pauli Epistt. cum prologo, published in the Spicilegium Romanum, t. ix. 
(Romae. 1843) P. ii. p.1, have been altered by a bishop called Peregrinus juxta sensum 
fidei catholicae, bee accordingly are no longer a source whence we may derive a knowl. 


d. H. B. Libkert de haeresi Priacillianidterum. Tavotie:. 1840. 8. 


CHAP. IL—THEOLOGY. Il. § 86. MANICHAEANS. ~ 327 


Priscillianists, however, continued to exist in spite of all perse- 
cutions till the sixth century. : 

At the same time, the persecution of the Manichaeans, who 
were especially hated for various reasons, was also renewed. 
Valentinian I., who tolerated all other sects, forbade them to 
assemble in public for their worship, in 372; and succeeding 
emperors enacted new and still more rigorous laws against them.’ 
But their most zealous adversary was Awrelius Augustinus, born 
at Tagaste, in Numidia, who had himself belonged to the Mani- 
chaeans for a considerable time, but had been converted at Milan 
by Ambrose (387). Afterward, as bishop of Hippo Regius in 
Numidia (from 395 to 430), he became as formidable an oppo- 
nent of heretics,'as he exercised an incalculable influence on 
his own and subsequent times, by his doctrinal and polemical 


writings.* His energies were directed in a high degree against. 


$ Lex Valentiniani I. a.p. 372 (Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 3): Ubicunque Manichaeorum con- 
ventus, vel turba hujusmodi reperitur, Doctoribus gravi censione multatis, domus et habi- 
tacula, in quibus profana institutione docetur, fisci viribus indubitantur adsciscantur. 
Theodosii M. A.D. 381 (eod. tit. 1. 7): Manichaeis, sub perpetua justae infamiae nota, tes- 
tandi ac vivendi jure Romano omnem protinus eripimus facultatem, neque eos aut relin- 
quendae aut capiendae alicujus haereditatis habere sinimus potestatem, etc. L.9, A.D. 382: 
Caeterum quos Encratitas prodigiali appellatione cognegminant, cum Saccoforis sive 
Hydroparastatis (namely the electi of the Manicheans)—summo supplicio et inexpiabili 
poena jubemus affligi. L.18, A.D. 389: Ex omni quidem orbe terrarum, sed quam maxime 
de hac urbe pellantur sub interminatione judicii. Honorii. L. 35 a.p. 399. L. 40, a. p. 407: 
Volumus esse publicum crimen, quia, quod in religionem divinam committitur, in omnium 
fertur injuriam. Quos honorum etiam publicatione persequimur, quae tamen cedere jubemus 
proximis quibusque personis, ete. L. 43, a.p. 408, Theodosii IT. L. 59 and xvi. x. 24, 
’ both A.D. 423. xvi. v. 62, 64, 65. 


* Besides the numerous writings against heretics, biblical commentaries (cf. Clausen ~ 


Aurel. Augustinus sacrae scripturae interpres. Hafn. 1827. 8.), [Davidson's Hermeneutics 
__ p. 133], sermons (Paniel’s Gesch. d. christl. Beredsamkeit, i. 781), Ascetic writings, letters, 
the following are to be especially noted: de Civitate Dei libb. xxii. (comp. § 79, note 18). 
De Doctrina christiana libb. iv. (ed. J. Chr. B. Teegius. Lips. 1769. 8.. C. H. Bruder, ed. 


Stereot. Lips. 1839. Paniel, i. 684). Confessiones libb. xiii. (c. praef. A. Neander. Berol. _ 


1823.8.) Retractationes libb. ii. Opp. ed. Monachi Benedictini e Congreg. St. Mauri. Paris 
1679-1700. xi. voll. recus. cum appendice cura Jo. Clerici. Antwerp. 1700-1703. xii. voll. 
Venetiis. 1729-35. xi. vol. fol. Operum supplem. i. cura D. A. B. Caillau et D. B. Saint- 
Yves. Paris. 1836. fol. Opp. emend. et aucta. Paris 1836, ss. xi. voll. 8. The more all 
parties had occasion to appeal to the writings of Augustine, in consequence of the high author- 
ity in which they stood, the greater was the danger of their undergoing intentional and unin- 
tentional corruptions. Even so early as the ninth century Hincmar (about 860), de non trina 
deitate (Opp. i. 450), unjustly accuses others of what he is disposed to do himself, i. e., of cor- 
raptingthem. The doctrinal position of the editor had its influence also on the earlier edi- 
tions. It is even proclaimed in the title of the Opp. Venet. 1584: In quo curavimus re- 
moveri ea omnia, quae fidelium mentes haeretica pravitate possent inficere. The Bene- 


dictines were the first who proceeded critically in their edition, but by this they gave offense. 
to the Jesuits, who asserted they had falsified the Codd. Corbejenses. On the other side wrote | 


Mabillon Supplementum libri de re diplomatica c. 13. On*this came forth the Jesuit 


=> * 


~~, 5 


a Te a ee OF 


px 


- 


SRS RN SOL eer Pepe © nee 


Per LRP MEM ey ey cee 


323. SECOND PERIOD—DIV. I—A.D. 324-451. 


the Manichaeans.’ Several were converted by him, but many 
still remained in Africa. Even in Rome, there were secret 
Manichaeans at that time; but their numbers were very much 
increased there after the conquest of Africa by the Vandals 
(429). Hence Leo the Great, bishop of Rome (440-461), 


exerted himself to the utmost to detect and convert them.® His 


zeal, supported by imperial ordinances, was not ineffectual ;’ 
but yet single Manichaean opinions continued to exist till far 
into the middle ages. 

There were still more furious controversies in Africa in the 
fourth century against the Donatists,’ among whom the fanati- 


Barth. Germon de veterum regum Franc. diplomat. discept. ii. p. 314. (App.) Now, too, 
the Benedictine Pet. Coustant.Vindiciae Codd. MSS. Paris. 1707. On the contrary side 
B. Germon de vett. haereticis ecclesiasticorum Codd. corruptoribus. Paris. 1713. 8. And 
again P. Coustant Vindiciae vett. Codd. confirmatae. Paris. 1715. 8. The life of Augustine 
vy his disciple Possidius, completed in Caillau et Saint-Yves, Suppl.i. On his life and 
character see Wiggers Darstellung des Augustinismus u. Pelagianismus (Berlin. 1821) 8. 7 
[translated by Emerson.. Andover, 1840. 8].. Ritter’s Gesch. d. christl. Philosophie, ii. 153. 
E. Bindemann’s der h. Augustinus, Bd.1. Berlin. 1844. 

5 His writings against the Manichaeans, see Div. I. before § 61. 

6 Leonis Opp. omnia (sermones et epistolae) ed. Paschas. Quesnell. Paris, 1675. 2 voll. 4. 
Petr. et Hier, fratres Ballerini. Venetiis. 1755-57. 3 t. fol. Against the Manichaeans 
sermo iv. de Quadragesima: Among other things he writes: Nemo ambigat esse Mani- 
chaeos, qui in honorem solis ac lunae die Dominico et secunda feria deprehensi fuerint 
jejunare—Cumque ad tegendum infidelitatem suam nostris andeant interesse mysteriis, 
ita in sacramentorum commanione se temperant, ut interdum tutius lateant : ore indigne 
Christi corpus accipiunt, sanguinem autem redemtiones nostrae haurire omnino declinant. 
Quod ideo Vestram volumus scire Sanctitatem, ut vobis hujuscemodi homines et his 
manifestentur indiciis, et quorum deprehensa fuerit sacrilega simulatio, notati et proditi © 
a sanctorum societate sacerdotali auctoritate pellantur. Sermo iv. de Epiphania, after enu- - 
merating the most striking of the Manichcean doctrines : Nihil ergo cum hujusmodi homin- 
ibus commune sit cuiquam Christiano, neminem fallant discretionibus ciborum, sordibus 
yestium, vultumque palloribus (cf. Hieron. Epist. 22,ad Eustochium: quam viderint pal- 
lentem atque tristem, miseram et Manichaeam vocant). Sermo v. de Jejunio decimi mensis : 
Residentibus itaque mecum Episcopis ac Presbyteris ac in eundem consessum Christianis 
viris ac nobilibus congregatis, Electos et Electas eorum jussimus praesentari, Quicum de 
perversitate dogmatis sui, et de festivitatum suarum consuetudine multa reserarent, illud 
quoque scelus, quod eloqui verecundum est, prodiderunt. Quod tanta diligentia investiga- 
tum est, ut nihil minus credulis, nihil obtrectoribus relinqueretur ambiguum. Aderant enim 
omnes personae, per quas infandum facinus fuerat perpetratum, puella scilicet, ut multum 
decennis, et duae mulieres, quae ipsam nutrierant et huic sceleri praepararant. Praesto erat 
etiam adoles centulus vitiator puellae, et Episcopus ipsorum detestandi criminis ordinator. 
Omnium par fuit horum et una confessio, et patefactum est execratum, quod aures nostrae 
vix ferre potuerunt. De quo ne apertius loquentes castos offendamus auditus gestorum docu- 
menta sufficiunt, quibus plenissime docetur, nullam in hocsecta pudicitiam, nullam honesta- 
tem, nullam penitus reperiri castitatem, in qua lex est mendacium, diabolus religio, sacrifi- 
cium turpitudo. Cf. Leonis Epist. viii: ad Episcopus per Italiam, Epist. xv. ad Turi- 
bium. Papst Leo’s Leben u. Lehren y. Ed. Perthel.. Jena. 1843, 8. 15. 

7 Valentiniani IIL. Novell. tit. xvii. ed. Haenel, v. t, 445. 

& Sources and works see Diy. I. § 72, note 25. 


CHAP. IL—THEOLOGY. IL § 86. DONATISTS. 329 


_¢al Agonistict, called.by the catholic Christians Cirewmcelliones, 
appeared, for the purpose of rendering their cause victorious by 
external force.’ The most formidable opponent of the Donatists 
was Augustine,’ who at last effected, by the emperor’s inter- 
ference, a conference with them in Carthage (411)," at which 
they were completely vanquished, in the judgment of the 


9 Concerning the time of the origin of the Agonistici or Circumcelliones, see Optatus, 


ili. ec. 4: Veniebant Paulus et Macarius (sent by the emperor about 348), qui pauperes 


ubique dispungerent, et ad unitatem singulos hortarentur: et cum ad Bagajensem 
civitatem proximarent, tune alter Donatus—ejusdem civitatis Episcopus, impedimen- 
tum unitati et obicem venientibus supra memoratis opponere cupiens, praecconis per vicina 
loca ef per omnes nundinas misit, Circumcelliones Agonisticos nuncupans, ad praedictum 
locum ut concurrerent, invitavit: et eorum illo tempore concursus est flagitatus, quorum 
dementia paullo ante ab ipsis Episcopis impie videbatur esse succensa. Described by 
Augustini de Haeres. lib. c. 69: Ad hanc (Donatistarum) haeresim in Africa et illi perti- 
nent, qui appellantur Circumcelliones, genus hominum agreste et famosissimae audaciae, 
non solum in alios immania facinora perpetrando, sed nec sibi eadem insana feritate 
parcendo. Nam per mortes varias, maximeque praecipitiorem et aquarum et ignium, se 
ipsos necare consuerunt, etin istum furorem alios quos potuerint sexus utriusque seducere 
aliquando, ut occidantur ab aliis, mortem nisi fecerint comminantes. Verumtamen pleris- 
que Donatistarum (non) displicent tales; nec eoram communione contaminari se putant. 
Idem contra Crescon, iii. § 46: Quotidie vestrorum incredibilia patimur facta Clericorum et 
Circumcellionum, multo pejora quam quorumlibet latronum atque praedonum. Namque hor- 
rendis armati cujusque generis telis, terribiliter vagando, non dico ecclesiasticam, sed ipsam 
humanam quietem pacemque perturbant, nocturnis agressionibus clericorum catholicorum 
invasas domos nudas atque inanes derelinquunt : ipsos etiam raptos et fustibus tunsos, ferro- 
que concisos, semivivos abjiciunt. Insuper—oculis eorum calcem aceto permixto infundentes 
—excruciare amplius eligunt quam citius excaecare. § 47: Circumcelliorum vestrorum. 
nobilis furor horrendum praebens vestris clericis satellitium usquequaque odiosissime inno- 
tuit. Idem contra Gaudentium, i. § 32: Cum idololatriae licentia usquequaque ferveret— 
isti Paganorum armis festa sua frequentantibus irruebant (cf. Epist. 185, § 12: quando 
adhue cultus fuerat idolorum, ad Paganorum celeberrimas sollemnitates ingentia tarbarum 
agmina veniebant, non ut idola frangerent, sed ut interficerentur a cultoribus idolorum: 
doubtless in the time from Julian to Gratian)—Praeter haec sunt saxa immania et mon- 
tium horrida praerupta, voluntariorum creberrimis mortibus nobilitata vestrorum ; aquis et 
ignibus rarius id agebant, praecipitiis greges consumebantur ingentes. Quis enim nescit 
hoc genus hominum in horrendis facinoribus inquietum, ab utilibus operibus otiosum, crudel- 
issimum in mortibus alienis, vilissimum in suis, maxime in agris territans, ab agris vacans 
et victus sui causa cellas circumiens rusticanas, unde et Circumcellionum nomen accepit ? 
Bjusd. Enarratio in Psalm. cxxxii. §3: Quando vos recte haereticis de Circumcellionibus in- 
sultare coeperitis—illi vobis insultant de Monachis. Primo si comparandi sunt, vos videte. 
Comparentur ebriosi cum sobriis, praecipites cum consideratis, furentes cum simplici- 
bus, vagantes cum congregatis. § 6: Fortasse dicturi sunt nostri non vocantur Circumeel- 
liones : vos illos ita appellatis contumelioso nomine. Agonisticos eos vocant. Sic eos, in- 
quiunt appellamus propter agonem. Certant enim, et dicit Apostolus: certamen bonum 
certavi (2 Tim. iv. 7). Quia sunt qui certant adversus diabolum et praeyalent milites 


Christi, Agonistici appellantur.. Utinam ergo milites Christi essent, et non milites dia- 
boli, a quibus plus timetur Deo laudes quam fremitus leonis. Hi etiam insultare nobis _/- 


audent, quia fratres, cam vident homines, Deo gratias dicunt. Vos Deo gratias nostram 

ridetis : Deo laudes vestrum plorant homines (cf. contra literas Petiliani, ii. § 146 : eonside- 

rate paululum, quam multis, et quantum luctum dederint Deo laudes armatorum vestrorum). 
10 Adr. Roux Diss. de Aur. Augustino adversario Donatistaram. Lugd: Bat. 1838, 8. 
11 Gesta collationis Carthagine habitae prim. ed. Papirius Masson, Paris 1589. 8, accord- 


rn, we ee 


330 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 324-451. 


imperial commissioner. This victory, and the imperial ordi- 
nances’* that followed, very much weakened the party, though 
remnants of it are found as late as the seventh century. 


. 


§ 87. 


PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 


G. J. Vossii Hist. de controversiis, quas Pelagius ejusque reliquiae moverunt libb. vii. 
Lugd. Bat. 1618. 4. auct. ed. G. Voss. Amst. 1655. 4 (in Vossii Opp. t. vi). Henr. 
Norisii Hist. Pelagiana et Dissert. de Synodo v. oecumenica. Patavii. 1673. fol. (in 
Norisii- Opp. t. 1. Veron. 1729). Joh. Garnier diss. vii. quibus integra continetur 
Pelagianorum Hist. (in his edition of Marii Mercatoris Opp. 1, 113, Praefatio in tom. x. 
Opp. Augustini edit. Monach. Benedict. Walch’s Ketzerhistorie, iv. 519. Wunde- 
mann’s Gesch. d. christ]. Glaubenslehren, ii. 44. Miinscher’s Dogmengesch. iv. 170. 
G. a. are Pragmat. Darstell. des Ancepenirese u. Pena Bes 2 Th. Berlin. 


te exerted the Seka influence on the fica? es- 
pecially of the occidental church, by his system of the relation 
of Divine grace to the human will, which he developed in the 
Pelagian controversy. . The freedom of the will, the evil conse- 
quences of the fall, and the necessity of Divine grace, had always 
‘been admitted in the church, without any attempt having been 
-made to define, by ecclesiastical formulas, the undefinable in 
these doctrines.! Since Tertullian, an opinion had been peculiar 
to the Latin fathers which was wholly unknown to the Greek 
church, that the sin of Adam had been transferred as a peccable 
principle to his posterity, by generation (tradux animae, tradux 
peccati). This must necessarily have had some influence on the 
doctrines of free will and Divine grace.2 Pelagius and Caeles- 


ing to the corrected edition of Baluzius in du Pin Monim. ad hist. Donatist. p. 225, and Mansi 
Concil. coll. t. iv. p. 1. Augustini breviculus collationis cam Donatistis (Opp. t. ix. p. 371). 

12 After several other laws against them, Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 52, Honorius ordered a gen- 
eral fine to be exacted of them. Also: Servos etiam dominorum admonitio, vel colonos. 
verberum crebrior ictus a prava religione revocabit.—Clerici vero ministrique eorum ac 
perniciosissimi sacerdotalés ablati de Africano solo quod ritu sacrilego polluerunt, in exilium 
viritim ad-singulas quasque regiones sub idonea prosecutione mittantur, ecclesiis eorum 
vel conventiculis praediisque, si qua in eorum ecclesias haereticorum largitas prava 
contulit, proprietati potestatique Catholicae (sicut jam dudum statuimus) vindicatis. In 
addition to all this, 414 L. 54: Evidenti praeceptione se agnoscant et intestabiles, et 
nullam potestatem alicujus ineundi habere contractus, sed perpetua inustos infamia, a 
-coetibus honestis et a conventu publico segregendos. 

1 Horn. Comm. de sententiis eoram Patrum, quorum auctoritas ante Augustinum pluri- 
mum valuit, de peccato originali. Goetting. 1801.4. Wiggers, i. 403, ff. How ground- 
lessly Augustine appéaled in support of his theory to Gregory of Nazianzum is shown by 
Ullmann in his work Gregor. v. Naz. S. 438, ff. 446, ff. 

“9 Hilarius Pictav. in Matth.c. 18, § 6: In unius Adae errore omne hominum geaus 


CHAP. I —THEOLOGY. Il. §87. PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 33% 


éius, two monks universally esteemed for their morals, had dis- 
tinguished themselves even during their abode at Rome (tilt 
409), by giving peculiar prominence to the doctrine of free will 
for the promotion of personal virtue? Afterward they repaired 
to Africa (411), whence Pelagius soon passed over into Palestine. 
But Caelestius, when he became a candidate for the office of 
presbyter in Carthage, was accused of various errors which had 
‘proceeded from the tendency to exalt free will,* and was excluded 
from church communion by a synod at Carthage (412); on 
which he went to Ephesus. 

The doctrines of Caelestius, however, had gained many friends, 
and therefore Augustine was induced to oppose them, although 
personally he had no share in the transactions of the syned by 
which Caelestius was condemned. His attention was soon drawn 
to the writings of Pelagius, as the teacher of Caelestius, which 
he refuted, but always as yet with respect and forbearance.* 
But after Jerome, in Palestine, had begun to raise suspicions 


aberravit. Ambrosius Expos: Evang. Lucae, 1. vii. p. 434: Fuit Adam, et in illo fuimus 
omnes. Periit Adam, et in illo omnes perierunt. L. vii. § 27: Deus quos dignat vocat, 
quos vult religiosos facit. Comp. Neander, ii. iii. 1188. 

° Particularly did Pelagius disapprove the address to God, in. Augustini Confess. x. 29: 
Da quod jubes, et jubes quod vis, see August. de Dono perseverantiae, c. 20. 

4 Marius Mercator has preserved from the Gestis Concilii the seven points of accusation 
(Commonitorium i. ed. Baluz. p. 3, Comm. ii. p. 133): I. Adam mortalem factum, qui. sive 
peccaret, sive non peccaret, fuisset moriturus. II. Quoniam peccatum Adae ipsum solum 
laesit, et non genus humanum. III. Quoniam infantes, qui nascuntur, in eo statu sunt, 
in quo Adam fuit ante prevaricationem. IV. Quoniam neque per mortem vel praevarica- 
tionem Adae omne genus hominum moriatur, neque per resurrectionem Christi omne 
hominum genus resurgat. V. Quoniam infantes, etiamsi non baptizentur, habeant vitam 
aeternam. VI. Quoniam lex sic mittit ad regnum coelorum, quomodo et evangelium. 
VII. Quoniam et ante adventum Domini fuerunt homines impeccabiles, id est sine peecato 
(p.3: Posse esse hominem sine peccato et facile Dei mandata servare, quia et ante Christi 
adventum fuerunt homines sine peccato). Cf. Augustin. de Gestis Pelagii 11. Caelestius’s 
defense of the second and third points in Augustin. de Pece. orig. c. 3, 4 (from the Synodical 
acts): Dixi, de traduce peccati dubium me esse, ita tamen, ut cui donavit Deus gratiam 
peritiae, consentiam; quia diversa ab eis audivi, qui utique in ecclesia catholica constituti 


‘sunt presbyteri. Sanctus presbyter Rufinus (perhaps the celebrated, see Norisius Hist. 


Pelag. i. 2, and de Syn. quint. c. 13) Romae qui mansit cum sancto Pammachio: ego audivi 
illum dicentem, quia tradux peccati non sit.—Licet quaestionis res sit ista, non haeresis. 
Infantes semper dixi egere baptizari: quid quaerit aliud? 

' § Augustine’s controversial writings till 415: .Sermones, 170, 174, 175, 293, 294; Epist. 


"140 ad Honoratum; 157 ad Hilarium (in reply to his information of Pelagians in Sicily in 


Epist. 156); especially de peccatorum meritis et remissione (s. de baptismo parvulorum), © 
libb. iii. ad Marcellinum (in the third book against Pelagii expositiones in‘Pauli Epist.); 
and de spiritu et littera ad. eundem. These writings from 412-414. De natura et gratia 
egainst Pelagii lib. de natura (Ep. 169, § 13, adversus Pelagii haeresim) and de perfectione 
Justitiae hominis i 8. liber ad Eutropium et Paullum, against Caelestii definitiqnes, 
both in the year 415. 


332 _ SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. 1—A-D. 324-451. 


against Pelagius of being an Origenist,® for he hated him from 
some trifling causes; and after Orosiws,” a presbyter sent by 
Augustine, had failed in his attempt to procure the condemna- 
tion of the Pelagian doctrine, with John, bishop of Jerusalem, 
and also with the synod at Diospolis (Lydda, 415),’ Augustine~ 
laid aside all forbearance, and opposed Pelagianism severely and 
bitterly in many works. The African bishops solemnly con- 
demned the heresy’? at the synods of Mileve and Carthage 
(416), and Innocent I., bishop of Rome, fully agreed with them.™ 
After Innocent’s death (+ 417), Pelagius and Caelestius applied 
to his successor Zosimus, by whom they were declared orthodox ;” 


§ Hieron. praef. libri i. in Jerem.: Nuper indoctus calumniator erupit, qui comm entarios 
meos in epistolam Pauli ad Ephesios reprehendendos putat (cf. Augustin. contra Julianum, 
ii. 36: De illo sancto presbytero (Hieronymo)—non solet Pelagius jactitare, nisi quod ei 
tamquam aemulo inviderit). Praef. lib. iv. in Jerem.: Subito haeresis Pythagorae et . 
Zenonis drabeiac kai dvayaptnoiac id est impassibilitatis et impeccantiae, quae olim in 
Origene, et dudum in discipulis ejus, Grunnio, Evagrioque Pontico, et Joviniano jugulata 
est, coepit reviviscere, et non solum in Occidentis, sed in Orientis partibus sibilare. 
Jerome wrote against Pelagius the Epist. ad Ctesiphontem (ap. Martianay Ep. 43, ap. 
Vallarsi Ep. 133) and the dialogi contra Pelagianos, libb. iii. in the years 414 and 415. 
Against the dialogues, although the doctrinal system in them is much nearer the Pelagian 
than the Augustinian, wrote Theodorus Mopsvestenus mpd¢ rove Aéyortac, dice, Kal od 
‘yvoun, nTalety Tod¢ GvOperove, libb. v., cf. Photius Cod. 177, and Ebedjesu in Assemani 
Bibl. Or. iii. i. 34, Latin fragments in Marius Mercator ed. Baluz. p. 339, ss. 

7 August. Epist. 169, §.13: Scripsi etiam librum ad sanctum presbyterum Hieronymum 
de animae origine (is Ep. 166), consulens eum, quomodo defendi possit illa sententia, quam 
religiosae memoriae Marcellino suam esse scripsit, singulas animas novas nascentibus 
fieri, ut non labefactetur fundatissima ecclesiae fides, quae inconcusse credimus, quod in 
Adam omnes moriuntur, et nisi per Christum liberentur, quod per suum Sacramentum 
etiam in parvulis operatur, in condemnationem trahuntur. Occasionem quippe cujusdam 
sanctissimi et studiosissimi juvenis presbyteri Orosii, qui ad nos ab ultima Hispania, id 
est ab Oceani littore, solo sanctarum scripturarum ardore inflammatus advenit, amittere 
nolui, cui, ut ad illum quoque pergeret, persuasi. 

8 See the narrative in Orosii Apologeticus contra Pelagium de arbitrii libertate. 

9 In the year 416: de Gestis Pelagii.s. de Gestis Palaestinis (at the same time the 
chief source respecting the Synod of Diospolis). 418: contra Pelagium et Caelestium 
lib. ii. i. de Gratia Christi, ii., de Peccato originali, a standard work: 419: de Nuptiis et 
Concupiscentia libb. ii. de Anima ejusque origine. 420: contra duas Epistolas Pelagian- 
orum. libb..iv. ad Bonifacium Rom. eccl. Episcopum. 421: contra Julianum haer. Pela- 
gianae defensorem libb. vi. 426, 427 (compare below, note 45): de Gratia et libero arbitric 
ad Monachos Adrumetinos. De Correptione et gratia ad eosdem (in which the doctrine 
of predestination is most plainly brought. forward). 417430: contra Secundam Juliani 
responsionem imperfectum opus, libb. vi. 

10 A synodical letter to Innocent I. from Carthage, in Epist. Augustini, Ep. 175, from 
Mileve in Ep. 176. Both also in Coustant. 

11 His reply to Carthage August. Epist. 181, to Mileve Ep. 182, and in Coustant. 

12 See especially Caelestii symb. ad Zosim. below note 19. The three letters of Zosimus 
ad Aurelium et caeteros Epist. Afric., the first two of Sept. 417, the third of 21 March, 
418, may be found in Coustant. In the first it is said: Ipsum sane Caelestium, et qui- 
cunque in tempore ex diversis regionibus aderant sacerdotes, admonui, has tendiculas 
quaestionum ef inepta certamina, quae non aedificant, sed magis destruunt, ex illa enrias- 





vin Fh 


CHAP. Il—THEOLOGY. Il. § 87. PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 333 


but the Africans adhered still to their judgment in the synod at 
Carthage (417), and the general synod held at the same place 
(418),* and suceeeded in obtaining from Honorius a sacrum 
rescriptum against the Pelagians.'’° Zosimus now also yielded, 
and condemned Pelagianism in the Epistola tractoria.® The 
Italian bishops were.compelled to subscribe this; and eighteen 
who refused were deposed. Among them also was Julian, bishop 
of Eclanum, who continued to defend Pelagianism in various 
works, against which Augustine wrote several in refutation. 
The Pelagians did not form an ecclesiastical, but simply a 
theological party. They had also no common type of doctrine, 
and therefore deviated from one another in particular points. 
Their opinions,” which are to be found without disfigurement 
only in their own works,’* may be reduced to the following arti- 


itatis contagione profluere, dum unusquisque ingenio suo et intemperanti eloquentia ae 
scripta (i. e., Scripturam 8.) abutitur, etc. 

13 Fragment of the Synod’s letter to Zosimus in Prosperi 1. contra collatorum, c. 15: 
Constituimus, in Pelagium atque Caelestium per venerabilem episcopum Innocentium de 
beatissimi apostoli Petri sede prolatam manere sententiam, donec apertissima confessione 
fateantur, gratia Dei per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, non solum ad cognoscendam, 
yerum etiam ad faciendam justitiam nos per actus singulos adjuvari, etc. 

14 Mansi, iv. 377. The eight (or nine see Norisius, l. c. p. 135, the Benedictine preface 
in t. x. Opp. Aug. § 18, and App. t. x. p. 71} Canones against the Pelagians are in the 
collection of the decrees of councils put erroneously as the first of the apne at Mileve, 
A.D. 416, ap. Mansi, iv. 325. . 

15 See Opp. August. ed Benedict. t. x. Appendicis pars ii. continens varia scripta et 
monumenta ad Pelagianorum historiam pertinentium, p. 105 (ed. Venet.). The Edictum 
of the three Praeff. Praetorio consequent thereon, p. 106. 

16 Fragments of it in Appendix p. 108 and ap. Coustant. That the tractoria was not 
issued before the African council and the sacrum rescriptum, as is supposed by Baronius, 
Norisius, Garnier and others, but after both, is proved by Tillemont, t. xiii. p. 738, 739, and 
the Benedictines, praef. ad t. x. opp. Aug. §. 18. Hence August. contra duas epist. Pelag. 
ji. c. 3: Quin etiam (Pelagiani) Romanos clericos arguunt, scribentes, “eos jussionis 
terrore perculsos non erubuisse praevaricationis crimen admittere, ut contra priorem ser- 
tentiam suam, qua gestis catholico dogmati adfuerant, postea pronuntiarent, malam hom- 
inum esse naturam.” ; 

17 Besides the works already referred to comp. J. G. Voigt Comm. de theoria Augustin- 
jana, Pelagiana, Semipelagiana et synergistica in doctrina de peccato originali, gratia et 


- libero arbitrio. Gottingae. 1829. 4. J. H. Lentzen de Pelagianorum doctrinae’ principiis 


diss. Coloniae ad Rh. 1833. 8. Die Lehre des Pelagius v. Lic. J. L. Jacobi. Leipzig. 
1842. 8: . 
18 Three works of Pelagius have been preserved complete by the circumstance of their 
having fallen among those of Jerome, viz., Pelagii expositiones in epist. Pauli, before the 
year 410. «(That Pelagius is the author is proved by J. G. Vossius Hist. Pelag. i. 4. Prob- 
ably Cassiodorus emended doctrinally nothing but the commentary on the Ep. to the 
Romans. Comp. Rosenmiiller Hist. Interpret. iii. 505)—Epistola ad Demetriadem a.p. 
413 (cum aliis aliorum epistolis ed. J. S. Semler. Hal. 1775. 8. Cf. Rosenmiiller 1. ¢. p. © 
522, ss.)\—Libellus fidei ad Innocent. I. a.p. 417 (taken into libros Carolinos de imag. cultu | 
iii.c.1, as confessio fidei, quam a SS. Patribus accepimus, tenemus et puro corde credimus; 


334 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—AD. 324-451. 


eles. ‘There is no original sin.’* Man can by his free will 
choose good as well as evil.*® Every one therefore can obtain 
salvation (salus s. vita aeterna). In Christianity a still higher 
salvation is- presented, for which baptism is a necessary condi- 
tion (regnum coelorum).”* As the law was formerly given to 


as late as 1521 cited by the Sorbonne in their Articulis against Luther as sermo Augustini, 

- often falsely called Hieronymi Symboli explan. ad Damasum ; cf. Jo. Launojus de auctore 
vero professionis fidei, quae Pelagio, Hieronymo, Augastino tribui vulgo solet Diss. . Paris. 
ed. 2. 1663. 8. in his Opp. ii. ii. 302. Wealchii Bibl. symb. vetus p. 192, ss.)—Fragments 
of Pelagii lib, de natura ap. August. de nat. et gratia. Of the lib. iv. de libero arbitric 

-and'the epist. ad Innocent I. fragments ap. August. de gratia Christi and de peccato orig- 
inali. Capitula s. eclogae fragments in Hieron. dial. i. contra Pelagianos and ap. August. 

_de gestis Pelagii—Caelestii definitiones fragments ap. August. de perfectione justitiae 
hominis. Symbolum ad Zosimum fragments ap. August. de peccato origin. (cf. Walchii 
Bibl. symb. vetus, p. 198, ss.)—Julieni libb. iv ad Turbantium Episc. contra Augustini 
primum de nuptiis, fragments ap. August. contra Julianum, and in M. Mercatoris subnota- 
tiones. Libb. viii. ad Hlorum contra Augustini secundum de nuptiis, fragments in Aug. 
opus imperfect. and ap. Marius Mercator 1. c—A Pelagian creed falsely called by Garnier 
Symb. Juliani, see Walch. Bibl. symb. vet. p. 199, ss. 

19 Caelestii Symb. fragm. i.: Infantes autem debere baptizari in remissionem pecca- 
torum secundum regulam ‘universalis ecclesiae et secundum evangelii sententiam, confite- 
mur, quia‘Dominus statuit, regnnm-caelorum nonnisi baptizatis posse conferri: quod quia 
vires naturae non habent, conferri necesse est per gratiae libertatem. In remissionem 
autem peccatorum baptizandos infantes non idcirco diximus, ut peccatum ex traduce (or 
peccatum naturae, peccatum naturale) firmare videamur, quod longe a catholico sensu 

alienum est. Quia peccatum non cum hontine nascitur, quod postmodum exercetur ab 
homine: quia non naturae delictum, sed voluntatis esse demonstratur. Et illud ergo 
confiteri congruum, ne diversa baptismatis genera facere videamur, et hoc praemunire 
necessarium est,ne per mysterii occasionem, ad creatoris injuriam, malum, antequam fiat 
‘ab homine, tradi dicatur homini per naturam. Pelagiiep.ad Demetr. C. 4: Ferat sen- 
tentiam de naturae bono ipsa conscientia bona.—Quid illud obsecro est, quod ad omne 
-peccatum aut erubescimus, aut timemus? et culpam facti nunc rubore vultus, nunc pallore 
monstramus 7—e diyerso autem in omni bono laeti, constantes, intrepidi sumus 7—Hst 
enim inquam in animis nostris naturalis quaedam (ut ita dixerim) sanctitas, quae velut in 


arce animi praesidens exercet boni malique judicium. But comp. c. 8: Neque vero alia ~ 


nobis causa difficultatem bene faciendi facit, quam longa consuetudo vitiorum, quae nos 
infecit a parvo, paulatimque per multos corrapit annos, et ita postea obligatos sibi et 
addictos tenet, ut vim quodammodo videatur habere naturae. 

20 Pelagius ap. August. de Pecc. orig. 14: Omne bonum ac malum, quo vel landabiles 
vel vituperabiles sumus, non nobiscum oritur, sed agitur a nobis: capaces enim utriusque 


rei, non pleni nascimur, et ut sine Virtute, ita et sine vitio procreamur: atque ante actionem ~ 


propriae voluntatis, id solum in homine est, quod Deus condidit. Epist. ad Demetr. c. 3: 
Volens namque Deus rationabilem creaturam voluntarii boni munere et liberi arbitrii 
potestate donare, utriusque partis possibilitatem homini inserendo proprium ejus fecit, 
esse quod velit: ut boni ac mali capax, naturaliter utrumque posset, et ad alterutram 
voluntatem deflecteret. Hence Caelestii definitiones are proofs, hominem sine peccato 
esse posse. Among other things it is said, def. 2: Iteram quaerendum est, péccatum 
voluntatis an necessitatis est? Si necessitatis est, peccatum non est, si voluntatis, 
vitari potest. 5. Iferam quaerendum est, utrumne debeat homo sine peccato esse. Pro- 
cul dubio debet. Si debet, potest: si non potest, ergo non debet. Et si non debet homo 
esse sine peccato, debet ergo cum peccato esse; et jam peccatum non crit, si illud deberi 
constiterit. * af: 4 a 

#1 August. de Pecc. merit. et remiss. i 30: Sed quia non ait, inquiunt, “ Nisi quis 


a 


a 


% 





CHAP. IL—THEOLOGY. Il. §87. PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 335 


facilitate the bringing about of goodness, so now the instructions 
and example of Christ, and the particular operations of grace. 
The latter, however, always follow the free purpose to. be 
good.”*  God’s predestination therefore is founded solely on his 
foreknowledge of human actions.” 

Though Augustine had formerly in ‘his controversy with the 
Manicheans conceded much to free will, and taken a very dif- 
ferent view of predestination,** he had long before Pelagius 
adopted. a stricter view,” which was for the first time developed 
in the controversy with the Pelagians®*® in the following system. 


renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu, non habebit salutem, vel vitam aeternam,”’ tantummodo 
autem dixit “non intrabit in regnum Dei” (Jo. iii. 5): ad hoc parvali baptizandi sunt, ut. 
sint etiam cum Christo in regno Dei, ubi non erunt, si baptizati non fuerint: quamvis 
et sine baptismo si parvuli moriantur, salutem. vitamque aeternam habituri sint, quo- 
niam nullo peccati vinculo obstricti sunt. In like manner, Origen ad Rom. ii. 7, see Div. I. 
§ 67, note 1. 

22 Pelagius de Libero arbitrio (ap. Aug. de grat. Chr. 7) : Hic nos imperitissimi hominum 
putant injuriam divinae gratiae facere, quia dicimus eam sine voluntate nostra nequa- — 
quam in nobis perficere sanctitatem: quasi Deus gratiae suae aliquid imperaverit, et non 
illis, quibus imperavit, etiam gratiae suae auxilium subministret, ut quod per liberum 
homines facere jubentur arbitrium, facilius possent implere per gratiam.. Quam nos non, 
ut tu putas, in lege tantummodo, sed et in Dei esse adjutorio confitemur. Adjuvat enim 
nos Deus per doctrinam et revelationem suam, dum cordis nostri oculos aperit; dum 
nobis, ne praesentibus occupemur, futura demonstrat; dum diaboli pandit insidias; dum 
nos multiformi et ineffabili dono gratiae caelestis illuminat. Ejusdem ep. ad Innoc. (ibid. 
ce. 31): Ecce apud beatitudinem tuam epistola ista me purget, in qua pure atque sim- 
‘pliciter ad peccandum et ad non peccandum integram liberum arbitrium habere nos 
dicimus, quod in omnibus bonis operibus divino adjuvatur semper auxilio.. Quam liberi 
arbitrii potestatem dicimus in omnibus esse generaliter, in Christianis, Judaeis, atque 
Gentilibus. In omnibus est liberum arbitrium aequaliter per naturam, sed in solis Christi- 
anis juvatur a gratia. - 

23 August. de Praedest. Sanct. c. 3: Quo praecipue testimonio (1 Cor. iy. 7) etiam ipse 
 convictus sum, cum similiter errarem, putans fidem, qua in Deum credimus, non esse 
donum Dei, sed a nobis esse in nobis, et perillam nos impetrare Dei dona, quibus tem-. 
peranter et juste et pie vivamus in hoc saeculo. Neque enim fidem putabam Dei gratia 
praeveniri, ut per illam nobis daretur, quod posceremus utiliter, nisi quia credere non 
possemus, si non praecederet praeconium veritatis: ut autem praedicato nobis Evangelio 
consentiremus, nostrum esse proprium, et nobis ex nobis esse arbitrabar. Quem meum 
errorem nonnulla opuscula mea satis indicant ante episcopatum meum scripta (in particu- 
lar the expositio quarundam propositionum in Ep. ad Rom. c. 60 and 61, other works 
against the Manichaeans. See Wundemann, ii. 79 and 91. Neander’s Kirchengesch. ii. 
iii. 1205). Cf. Retractt. i. 23. 

24 Comp. lib. de diversis quaestionibus 83 (written A.D. 388-395). Qu. Ixviii: § 4-6. 
- De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum, 1. i. Qu. 2 (4.D. 397). Miinscher’s Dogmen- 
gesch. iv. 200. 

*8 See Wiggers, i. 264, ff. Even Duns Scotus (Quaest. in Lombard. lib. ii. Dist. 33) 
says: Frequenter sancti extinguendo contra se haereses pullulantes excessive locuti sunt 
volentes declinare ad aliud extremum :—sicut Augustinus contra Arium videtur quasi 
declinare ad Sabellium et e converso, similiter videtur contra Pelagium declinare ad Ariam 
(leg. Manichaeum) et e converso. So also Cornelius Mussus Episc. Bitontinus (t 1574) 
Comm: in epist. ad Rom. ¢. 5, p. 270. Cf. Jo. Fabricii Diss. de Scylla theologica in ejusd. 


336° - > -‘SEGOND PERIOD.—DIV. 1—A.D. 324451. 


«By the sin of Adam human nature became physically and 
morally corrupt.*® . From it evil lust’ (concupiscentia) has come, 
which, since it has become the inheritance of all men by gener- 
ation, has’ come to be original sin, in itself damnatory (peccatum. 
originale, vitium originale, vitium ‘haereditarium),”’ and preyails 
so much over the will of the natural man that he can no longer 
will what is good, as he should do, out of love to God, Put sins 
‘continually, however his actions may externally appear.”® From 


amoenitatibus theoll. ¢.9. On the othr hand Norisius in the Vindiciis Augustinianis, c. 5, 
_§ 5, seeks to defend him.—The Augustinian system is very differently represented, because 
“the most opposite parties wished to find their own sentiments in it. It is most correctly 
-described by the Reformed, the Dominicans, Augustines, and Jansenists; most ag 

sented by the Jesuits. 

 % Wiggers, i. 106. 

27 Comp. especially the books de Peccato originali and de Nuptiis et Concupiscentia— 

De civ. Dei xiv. 1: A-primus hominibus admissum est tam grande peccatum, ut in de- 
‘terius eo natura mutaretur humana, etiam in postefos obligatione peccati et mortis 

necessitate transmissa. De Peccat. merit. et remiss, i.9: Ille, in quo omnes moriuntur, 

praeter quod eis qui praeceptum Domini voluntate transgrediuntur, imitationis exemplum 
est, occulta etiam tabe carnalis concupiscentiae suae tabificavit in se omnes de sua stirpe 
venientes. De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia, i. 24: Ex hac carnis concupiscentia, tanquam 
filia peccati, et quando illi ad turpia consentitur, etiam peccatoruam matre multorum, quae- 
_ cunque nascitur proles, originali est obligata peccato, nisi in illo renascatur, quem sine ista 
concupiscentia virgo concepit: propterea, quando nasci est in carne dignatus, sine peccato 
solus est natus. De Corrept. et Gratia 10: Quia vero (Adam) per liberum arbitrium Deum 
deseruit, justum judicium Dei expertus est, ut cum tota sua stirpe, quae in illo adhuc 

posita tota-cum illo peccaverat, damnaretur (de Peccat. merit. et remiss. i. 10, Rom. v. 12 
-is cited for this purpose, in quo omnes peccaverunt, é¢’ @ mévTe¢ HuapTor, quando omnes 

ille unus homo fuerunt). Quotquot enim ex hac stirpe gratia Dei liberantur, a damnatione 
-utique liberantur, qua jam tenentur obstricti. Unde etiam si nullus liberaretur, justum 
_ Dei judicium nemo juste reprehenderet. Quod ergo pauci in comparatione pereuntium, in 
suo yero numero multi liberantur, gratia fit, gratis fit, gratiae sunt agendae, quia fit, ne 
quis velut de suis meritis extollatur, sed omne os obstruatur, et qui gloriatur, in Domino 
glorietur. De Pece. orig. 31: Unde ergo recte infans illa perditione punitur, nisi quia 
pertinet ad massam perditionis, et juste intelligitur ex Adam natus, antiqui debiti obliga- 


tione damnatus, nisi inde fuerit, non secundum debitum, sed secundum gratiam liberatus ? 


Hence the Pelagians accused him of holding the doctrine of a tradux animae and tradux 
peccati (Traduciani). Inclined as he may have been to that view,-he left the question 
of the origin of souls s undecided. Cf. de Anima et ejus origine libb. iv. Opus imp. iv. 104: 


) 


Arguo de origine animarum cunctationam meam, quia non audeo docere vel affirmare quod 


nescio (cf. de Peccat. merit. et remiss. ii. 36). 

28 Contra duas epistt. Pelagianorum, i.2: Quis autem nostrum dicat, quod primi homi- 
nis peccato perierit liberum arbitrium de humano genere? Libertas quidem periit per 
‘peccatum, sed illa quae in paradiso fuit, habendi plenam cum immortalitate justitiam ; 
propter quod natura humana divina indiget gratia, dicente Domino: si vos Filius libera- 
verit, tunc vere liberi eritis (John viii. 36), utique liberi ad bene justeque vivendum. Nam 
liberum arbitriam ‘usque adeo in peccatore non periit, ut per illud peccent, maxime omnes 


qui cum delectatione peccant et amore peccati: hoc eis placet, quod eis libet. De gratia 


. Christi 26: Quid autem boni faceremus, nisi diligeremus? Aut quomodo bonum non faci- 
mus, si diligamus? Etsi enim Dei mandatum videtur aliquando non a diligentibus, sed a 
timentibus fieri: tamen ubi non est dilectio, nullum bonum opus imputatur, nec recte 

~- bonum opus vocatur, quia omne quod non ex fide est, peccatum est, et fides per dilectionem 


. 


CHAP. IL—THEOLOGY. II. § 87. PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 337 


this corrupt mass of humanity (perditionis massa) God resolved 
from eternity to save some through Christ, and leave the rest to 
deserved perdition._ Though baptism procures forgiveness of sin, 
even of original sin, it does not remove the moral corruption of 
man.”° Therefore Divine grace alone, and irresistibly, works faith 
in the elect, as well as love and power to do good.*° The others, 


operatur. Ac per hoc gratiam Dei, qua caritas Dei diffunditur in cordibus nostris per Spi- 
titum sanctum, qui datus est nobis, sic confiteatur, qui vult veraciter confiteri, ut omnino 
nihil boni sine illa, quod ad pietatem pertinet veramque justitiam, fieri posse non dubitet. 
Wiggers, i. 121. J.G.L. Duncker Hist. doctrinae de ratione quae inter peccatum ori- 
ginale et actuale intercedit apud Irenaeum, Tertullianum, Augustinum. Gottingae. 
1836. 8. 

29 De Nupt. et Concupise. i. 26: In eis ergo qui regenerantur in Christo, cum remissio 
nem accipiunt prorsus omnium peccatorum utique necesse est, ut reatus etiam hujus licec 
adhuc manentis concupiscentiae remittatur, ut in peccatum, sicut dixi, non imputetur,— 
manet actu, praeterit reatu. De Peccat. de meritis et remiss. i. 19: Caeterum quis igne 
rat, quod baptizatus parvulus, si ad rationales annos veniens non crediderit, nec se ab illi- 
citis concupiscentiis abstinuerit, nihil ei proderit, quod parvus accepit? Verumtamen si 
percepto baptismate de hac vita emigraverit, soluto reatu, cui originaliter erat obnoxius, 
perficietur in illo lumine veritatis, qaod incommutabiliter manens in aeternum, justificatos 
praesentia creatoris illuminat. 

30 In the beginning of the controversy Augustine still thought of these operations of 
grace as resistibiles, see De Spiritu et Litera, c. 34: Agit Deus, ut velimus, et ut creda- 
mus, sive extrinsecus per evangelicas exhortationes,—sive intrinsecus, ubi nemo habet in 
potestate quid ei veniat in mentem, sed consentire vel dissentire propriae voluntatis est. 
His. ergo modis quando Deus agit cum anima rationali, ut ei credat (neque enim credere 
potest quodlibet libero arbitrio, si nulla sit suasio vel vocatio cui credat), profecto et ipsum 
velle credere Deus operatur in homine, et in omnibus misericordia ejus praevenit nos: 
consentire autem vocationi Dei, vel ab ea dissentire, sicut dixi, propriae voluntatis est. 
But in his later works they appear as irresistibly acting. De Corrept. et Grat. 7: Qui- 
cunque ergo ab illa originali damnatione ista divinae gratiae largitate discreti sunt, non 
est dubium, quod et procuratur eis audiendum evangelium; et cum audiunt, credunt; et 
in fide, quae per delectionem operatur, usque in finem perseverant; et si quando exorbi- 


tant, correpti emendantur; et quidam eorum, etsi ab hominibus non corripiantur, in viam 


quam reliquerant redeunt ; et nonnulli accepta gratia, in qualibet aetate, periculis hujus 
vitae mortis celeritate subtrahuntur. Haec enim omnia operatur in eis, qui vasa miseri- 
cordiae operatus est eos, qui et elegit eos in filio suo ante constitutionem mundi per elec- 
tionem gratiae. De Gratia Christi, c. 24: Non lege atque doctrina insonante forinsecus, 
sed interna atque occulta mirabili ac ineffabili potestate operari Deum in cordibus homi- 
num non solum veras revelationes, sed etiam bonas voltintates. De Corrept. et Graf.c.9:. 
Quicunque ergo in Dei providentissima dispositione praesciti, praedestinati, vocati, justi- 
ficati, glorificati sunt, non dico etiam nondum renati, sed etiam nondum nati, jam filii Dei 
sunt, et omnino perire non possunt. Ibid. 12: Ac per hoc nec de ipsa perseverantia boni 
voluit Deus sanctos suos in viribus suis, sed in ipso gloviari.—Tantum quippe Spiritu 
sancto accenditur voluntas eorum, ut ideo possint, quia sic volunt; ideo sic velint, quia 
Deus operatur, ut velint—Subventum est igitur infirmitati voluntatis humanae, ut divina 
gratia indeclinabiliter et insuperabiliter ageretur. Ibid.14: Non est itaque dubitandum, 
voluntati Dei, qui in caelo et in terra omnia, quaecunque voluit, fecit, et qui etiam illa, 
quae futura sunt, fecit, hamanas voluntates non posse resistere, quo minus faciat ipse quod 
vult: quandoquidem etiam de ipsis hominum voluntatibus, quod vult, cum vult, facit. 
These moral effects of grace Augustine comprehends under Justificatio, cf. Opus imper- 
fect. contra Jul. ii. c. 168: Justificat impium Deus, non solum dimittendo, quae mala facit, 
sed etiam donando caritatem, quae declinat a malo et facit bonum per Spiritum sanctum. 


VoL. L—=22 


338 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 324-451. 


to whom the grace of God is not imparted * have no advantage 
from Christ, and fall into condemnation,** even an eternal one.” * 

Such were the opposing systems, apart from the consequences 
with which the misrepresentations of the combatants reproached 


31 For the most part Augustine uses the expression Praedestinatio only of predestina- 
tion to happiness, but sometimes also of condemnation. Tract. 110, in Joan. distinguishes 
duplicem mundum, unum damnationi praedestinatum, alterum ex inimico amicum factum 
et reconciliatum. Enchirid. ad Laur. c. 100: Haec sunt magna opera Domini, ut, cum 
angelica et humana creatura peccasset,—etiam per eandem creaturae voluntatem, qua 
factum est quod Creator noluit, impleret ipse quod voluit: bene utens et malis, tamquam 
summe bonus, ad eorum damnationem, quos juste praedestinavit ad poenam, et ad eorum 
salutem, quos benigne praedestinavit ad gratiam. Cf. de Grat. et Lib. arbitr. c. 21: Ope- 
rari Deum in cordibus hominum ad inclinandas eorum voluntates quocunque voluerit, sive 
ad bona pro sua misericordia, sive ad mala pro meritis eorum. Ratramnus de Praedest. ii. 
(in Vett. auctorum, qui ix. saec. de praedest. et gratia scripserunt opera, cura Gilb. Mau- 
guin, i. 62) has collected several passages of this kind. Comp. however Wiggers, i. 305. 

32 De Peccat. merit. et remiss. iii. 4: Quoniam nihil agitur aliud, cum parvuli bapti- 
zantur, nisi ut incorporentur ecclesiae, id est, Christi corpori membrisque socientur, mani- 
festum est, eos-ad damnationem, nisi hoc eis collatum fuerit, pertinere. De Gratia et Lib. 
arbitr. 3: Sed et illa ignorantia, quae non est eorum, qui scire nolunt, sed eorum, qui tan- 
quam simpliciter nesciunt, neminem sic excusat, ut sempiterno igne non ardeat, si prop- 
terea non credidit, quia non audivit omnino quid crederet ; sed fortasse, ut mitius ardeat 
(cf. contra Julianum, iv. 3. Absit, ut-sit in aliquo vera virtus, nisi fuerit justus. Absit 
autem, ut sit justus vere, nisi vivat ex fide. Minus enim Fabricius quam Catalina puni- 
etur, non quia iste bonus, sed quia ille magis malus: et minus impius, quam Catilina, © 
Fabricius, non veras virtutes habendo, sed a veris virtutibus non plarimum deviando).— 
De Corrept. et Grat. 7: Ac per hoc et qui Evangelium non audierunt, et qui eo audito in 
melius commutati perseverantiam non acceperunt, et qui Evangelio audito venire ad 
Christum, hoc est, in eum credere noluerunt, quoniam ipse dixit, Nemo venit ad me, nisi 
ei datum fuerit a Patre meo (John vi. 66), et qui per aetatem parvulam nec credere potue- 
runt, sed ab originali noxa solo possent lavacro regenerationis absolvi, quo tamen non ac- 
cepto mortui perierant; non sunt ab illa conspersione discreti, quam constat esse damna- 
tam, euntibus omnibus ex uno in condemnationem. Ibid. 13: Propter hujus ergo utilita- 
tem secreti credendum est, quosdam de filiis perditionis non accepto dono perseverandi 
usque in finem, in fide, quae per dilectionem operatur, incipere vivere, et aliquamdiu fide- 
liter ac juste vivere, et postea cadere, neque de hac vita, priusquam hoc eis contingat, 
auferri. De Praedest. Sanct. 8: Cur autem istum potius, quam illum liberet, inscratabilia 
sunt judicia ejus et investigabiles viae ejus (Romae xi. 33). Melius enim et bic andimus 
aut dicimus: O homo, tu quis es, qui respondeas Deo (Rom. ix. 20). How much perplex- 
ity the passage, 1 Tim. ii. 4, qui omnes vult homines salvos fiere, occasioned Augustine, is 
proved by his numerous and all very forced attempts to explain it. So de Corrept. et Grat. 
c.14. Contra Jul. iv. c. 8: Omnes i. q. multos; Enchirid. ad Laur. 103: Omnes i. q. om- 
nis generis. De Corrept. et Gratia, c. 15: Omnces homines Deus vult salvos fieri, quoniam 
nos facit velle. Enchirid. 1. c. tanquam diceretur, nullum hominem fieri salvum, nisi quem 
fieri salvam ipse voluerit. 

33 De Civ. Dei, xxi. c. 23. Enchirid. ad Laur. c. 112 (see above, § 84, note 35). The 
last passage is against those who inferred from Psalm Ixxvii. 10, that the punishment of 
hell will have an end. Still he concedes to them: Sed poenas damnatorum certis tempo- 
rum intervallis existiment, si hoc eis placet, aliquatenus mitigari. Etiam sic quippe in- 
telligi potest manere in illis ira Dei (Jo. iii. 36), h. e. ipsa damnatio—ut in ira sua, h. e. 
manente ira sua, non tamen contineat miserationes suas (Ps. Ixxvii. 10): non aeterno sup 
plicio finem dando, sed levamen adhibendo vel interponendo cruciatibus. In the Enarrat 
in Psalm cy. § 2, however, he declares even this conjecture too bold. 


CHAP. IL—THEOLOGY. If § 87. PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 339 


one another,*! for the purpose of exciting universal abhorrence 
of the enemy’s doctrine. ‘The sentiments of Augustine were 
ecclesiastically confirmed by the decisions of African synods and 
by Zosimus in the west; although their author himself felt how 
dangerous they might be made to morals, and was able to bring 
them forward in popular instruction in no other than an incon- 
sequential way.*° The Greek Church could not but stumble at 
them; but it troubled itself little about such controversies.*® 
The exiled western bishops hoped, therefore, that they would so 


%4 So the Pelagians palmed on Augustine the opinion, per diabolum aliquid substantiae 
creatum in hominibus (Augustin. de Nuptiis et Concupisc. ii. 34), quasi malum naturale 
cum Manichaeis sapiat, qui dicit, infantes secundum Adam carnaliter natos contagium 
mortis antiquae prima nativitate contrahere. On the contrary, Augustinus contra Julia- 
num, lib. i, and ii. But Pelagianism also was not less misrepresented by its opponents. 
August. de Pecc. mer. et rem. ii. 2, designates the Pelagians as tantum praesumentes de 
libero humanae voluntatis arbitrio, ut ad non peccandum nec adjuvandos nos divinitus opi- 
nentur. C.5: Dicunt, accepto semel liberae voluntatis arbitrio nec orare nos debere, ut 
Deus nos adjuvet, ne peccemus. Epist. Conc. Carthag. ad Innocent. (Aug. Epist. 175) 
§ 6: Parvulos etiam propter salutem, quae per salvatorem Christum datur, baptizandos 
negant—promittentes, etiamsi non baptizentur, habituros vitam aeternam. 

35 De Dono perseverantiae, c. 22: Dolosi vel imperiti medici est, etiam utile medica- 
mentum sic alligare, ut aut non prosit, aut obsit. One should not say to the church: Ita 
se habet de praedestinatione definita sententia voluntatis Dei, ut alii ex vobis de infideli- 
tate, accepta obediendi voluntate, veneritis ad fidem. Quid opus est dici, alii ex vobis ? 
Si enim Ecclesiae Dei loquimur, si credentibus loquimur, cur alios eorum ad fidem venisse 
dicentes caeteris facere videamur injuriam? cum possimus congruentius dicere: Ita se 
habet de praedestinatione definita sententia voluntatis Dei, ut ex infidelitate veneritis ad 

- fidem accepta voluntate obediendi, et accepta perseverantia permaneatis in fide? Nec 
illud quod sequitur est omnino dicendum, i. e. caeteri vero qui in peccatorum delectatione 
remoramini, ideo nondum surrexistis, quia necdum vos adjutorium gratiae miserantis 
erexit: cum bene et convenienter dici possit et debeat: si qui autem adhuc in peccatorum 
damnabilium delectatione remoramini, apprehendite saluberrimam disciplinam: quod 
tamen cum feceritis, nolite extolli quasi de operibus vestris aut gloriari, quasi hoc non ac- 
ceperitis ; Deus est enim, qui operatur in vobis et velle et operari pro bona voluntate—de 
ipso autem cursu vestro bono rectoque condiscite vos ad praedestinationem divinae gratiae 
pertinere. Augustine is inconsistent when he, Epist. 194, c..4, in accordance with his 
- system, declares prayer to be an effect of Divine grace, and, Epist. 157, c. 2, says, we re- 
ceive Divine grace humiliter petendo et faciendo, and, Op. imperf. iii. 107 : Homines quan- 
do audiunt vel legunt, unumquemque recepturum secundum ea, quae per corpus gessit, non 
debent in suae voluntatis virtute confidere, sed orare potius talem sibi a Domino preparari 
voluntatem, ut non intrent in tentationem. Ye 

°6 Comp. the refutation of Augustine’s doctrines by Theodore of Mopsuestia, ap. Marius 

Mercator, ed. Baluz. p. 399, ss. ex. gr. p. 342: Nihil horum prospicere potuit mirabilis 
peccati originalis assertor, quippe qui in divinis scripturis nequaquam fuerit exercitatus, 
nec ab infantia, juxta b. Pauli vocem, sacras didicerit literas—Novissime vero) in hanc 
dogmatis recidit novitatem, qua diceret, quod in ira atque furore Deus Adam mortalem 
esse praeceperit, et propter ejus unum delictum cunctos etiam necdum natos homines morte 
multaverit. Sic autem disputans non veretur nec confunditur ea sentire de Deo, quae nec 
de hominibus sanum sapientibus et aliquam justitiae curam gerentibus unquam quis 
aestimare tentavit, caet. The Greek church historians are altogether silent concerning 
the Pelagian controversy. 


340 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 324-451. 


much the more readily obtain protection in. Constantinople, as 
they believed they had wholly in their favor the works of Chrys- 
ostom, which were highly esteemed in that place.*’ Hence they 
applied particularly to Nestor, who had been bishop of the see 
of Constantinople since 428. But since very prejudicial repre- 
sentations of Pelagianism had been disseminated from the west, 
especially by Marius Mercator, who was personally present 
in Constantinople,*® Nestorius saw the necessity of giving prom- 
inence to the ruinous consequences of the fall and the neces- 
sity of baptism, which the Pelagians were said to deny.*® But 
on the other hand, he found the Pelagians themselves who had 
fled to him, so little heterodox, that he asked from the Ro- 


mish bishop Caelestine (429) an explanation respecting the 
grounds of their condemnation.*! ‘This very relation of the Pe- 


37 So Juliam appealed to Chrysostom. See August. contra Jul. i. c- 6,s. With the 
same view Annianus, doubtless the Annianus Pseudodiaconus Celedensis who is mentioned 
by Hieron. ad August. (August. Ep. 202) as a writer in favor of Pelagianism, and who was 
also present at the synod of Diospolis (see Garnerii Diss. i. ad Marium Mercat. ec. 7), 
translated into Latin numerous homilies of Chrysostom, of which Hom. viii. in Matth. 
and Hom vii. de laudibus S. Pauli still exist. Comp. his Prologus ad Orontium Episc. 
(who was condemned at Ephesus for being a Pelagian) prefixed to the Hom. in Matth. 
(Chrysost. Opp. ed. Montfaucon, t. vii. init.): Quid enim vel ad prudentiam eruditius, 
vel ad exercitationem ignitius, vel ad dogma purgatius nostrorum auribus offeratur, quam 
praeclara haec tam insignis animi ingeniique monumenta? Et hoc maxime tempore, 
quo per occasionem quarundam nimis difficilium quaestionum aedificationi morum atque 
ecclesiasticae disciplinae satis insolenter obstrepitur. Quid pressius ille commendat, 
quam ingenitae nobis a Deo libertatis decus cujus confessio praecipuum inter nos gen- 
tilesque discrimen est, qui hominem, ad imaginem Dei conditum, tam infeliciter fati 
violentia et peccandi putant necessitate devinctum, ut is etiam pecoribus invidere cogatur? 
Quid ille adversus eosdem magistros potius insinuat, quam Dei esse possibilia mandata, 
et hominem totius vel quae jubetur vel suadetur a Deo.capacem esse virtutis? Quo 
quidem solo et iniquitas ab imperante propellitur, et praevaricanti reatus affigitur. Jam 
vero iste eruditoruam decus cum de gratiae Dei disserit, quanta illam ubertate, quanta 
etiam cautione concelebrat? Non enim est in alterutro aut incautus, aut nimius, sed in 
utroque moderatus. Sic liberas ostendit hominum voluntates, ut ad Dei tamen mandata 
facienda divinae gratiae necessarium ubique fateatur auxilium: sic continuum divinae 
gratiae auxiliam commendat, ut nec studia voluntatis interimat. Chrysost. in Epist. ad 
Rom. Hom. x. expressly rejects, as an absurdity, the opinion that by Adam’s disobedience 
another person becomes a sinner. On the relation of grace to freedom he speaks in Epist. 
ad Hebr. Hom. xii. 

38 Opera ed. Jo. Garnerius, Paris. 1673. fol., better Steph. Baluzius, Par. 1684. 8 (re- 
printed in Gallandii Bibl. vett. Patr. viii. 613). In the Commonitorium adv. haeresin 
Pelagii et Caelestii vel etiam scripta Juliani, ed. Baluz. p. 1. Commonitorium super 
nomine Caelestii (429, presented to the emperor Theodosius IL) p. 132. 

39 Marius Mercator always gives special prominence to the tenets of Caelestius (see 
note 4), though Pelagius had rejected most of them at the synod of Diospolis. 

49 Nestorii Sermones iv. contra Pelagium (Latin, partly in nothing but an extract in 
Marius Mercator, p.120. The four discourses in the original among Chrysostom’s orations 
ed. Montfaucon, x. p. 733) are not aimed directly against Pelagius. 

*! Marius Merc. p. 119: Contra haeresin Pelagii seu Caclestii—quamvis recte sentiret 


CHAP. Il—THEOLOGY.- II. § 87. PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 341 


lagians to Nestorius was ruinous to them in the west; an inter- 
nal necessary connection between Pelagianism and Nestorianism 
was hunted out,‘* and at the third general council at Ephesus 
(431) Pelagianism was condemned along with Nestorianism.‘* 
Yet the Augustinian doctrine of grace and predestination was 
never adopted in the east.** 

But even in the west, where this doctrine had been ecclesias- 
tically ratified, there were never more than a few who held to 
it in its fearful consequences.. Its injurious practical effects 
eould not be overlooked, and appeared occasionally in outward 
manifestation.*? The monks in particular were naturally op- 
posed to a view which annihilated all the meritoriousness of 
their monastic exercises.‘* Hence Augustine soon found his 
doctrine disputed even by opponents of the Pelagians.‘’ The . 
monks of Masstlia especially, adopted a view of free grace be- 
tween that. of Augustine and that of Pelagius, which seems to 
have originated chiefly with John Cassian (+ soon after 432),*° 


et doceret, Julianum tamen ex Episcopo Eclanensi cum participibus suis hujus haeresis 
signiferum et antesignanum, olim ab apostolica sententia exauetoratum atque depositum, 
in amicitiam interim censuit suscipiendum. Spem enim absolutionis promittens, ipsum 
queque Caelestium litteris suis—eonsolatus est. This writing follows, p. 131. On this 
account Nesterius applied, in the year 429, to the Romish bishop Caelestine, in two letters 
(ap. Baronius ad ann. 430, no. 3, ap. Coustant among the Epistt. Caelest. Ep. vi. and vii.). 
In the first: Julianus, caet.—saepe—Imperatorem adierunt, ac suas causas defleverunt, 
tanquam orthodoxi temporibus orthodoxis persecutionem passi saepe eadem et apud nos 
lamentantes.—Sed quoniam apertiore nobis de causis eorum notitia opus opS-—diguare 
nobis notitiam de his largiri, caet. 

#2 See below, § 88, note 18. 

43 See below, § 88, note 27. 

44 Miinscher’s Dogmengeschichte, iv. 238. 

*> Comp. the memorable controversy among the monks of Adrumetum, 426 and 427. 
August. Epistt. 214-216. Retractt. ii. 66, 67. Some (Ep. 214) sic gratiam praedicant, 
ut negent hominis esse liberum arbitrium, et, quod est gravius, dicant, quod in die judicii 
non sit redditurus Deus unicuique secundum opera ejus. They said accordingly (Retr. ii. 
67), neminem corripiendum, si Dei praecepta non facit, sed pro illo ut faciat, tantummodo 
orandum (different after all only in the form, not essentially, from the doctrines of 
Augustine!) Others (Ep. 215) asserted, like the Semipelagians, secundum aliqua merite 
humana dari gratiam Dei. A strictly Augustinian party stood between, Against the 
first Augustine wrote de Correptione et Gratia; against the second de Gratia et libero 
Arbitrio. Comp. Walch’s Ketzerhist. 245, ff. 

«© Comp. fer example Cassiani Coll. xix. 8: Finis quidem Coonobitas est, omnes suas 
mortificare et crucifigere voluntates, ac secundum evangelicae perfectionis salutare mun- 
datum nihil de crastino cogitare. Quam perfectionem prorsus a nemine, nisi a Coenobita 
impleri posse certissimum est. ‘ ' 

*7 Joh. Geficken Hist. Semipelagianismi antiquissima. Gotting. 1826. 4. Wiggers 
Darstellung des Augustinismus u. Pelagianismus, 2ter Th.—On the differences between him 
and Vitalis see August. Epist. 217. Walch, v.9. Geffcken, p. 40, ss. Wiggers, ii. 198. 

48 His works: De institutis Coenobiorum libb. xii. Collationes Patrum xxiv. De 


342 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. 1.—A.D.. 324-45I.. 


a disciple of Chrysostom.’® Augustine received the first account 
of these Massilians, or, as they were first named by the Scho- 
lasties, Semipelagians, from his zealous adherents Prosper of 
Aquitania, and Hilary (429),°° and attempted to bring them 
ever to his views in his last two works (429, 430).°. After 
Augustine’s death, Prosper ({ 460) continued the controversy 


Incarnatione Christi adv. Nestorium libb. vii—-Opp. ed. Alardus Gazaees. Duaci. 1616 
3 t. 8, auct. Atrebati. 1628. fol. (Reprimted Francof. 1722, and Lips. 1733. fol.)—Cf. G. F. 
Wiggers de Joanne Cassiano Massiliensi, qui Semipelagianismi auctor vulgo perhibetur, 
Comm. iii. Rostochii, 1824 ‘and 25. 4. The same author's Augustinismus u. Pelag. ii. 7. 
Jean Cassien, sa vie et ses écrits, thése par L. F. Meyer. Strasbourg. 1840. 4. 

*9 Comp. especially Collat. xiii. (according to Wiggers, ii. 37, written between 428 and 
451, according to Geffcken, p. 6, somewhat before 426). Among other things we find, in 
e. 9: Propositum namque Dei, quo non ob hoc hominem fecerat ut periret, sed ut in 
perpetuum viverit, manet immobile. Cujus benignitas cum bonae voluntatis in nobis 
quantulamcunque scintillam emicuisse perspexerit, vel quam ipse tamquaem de dura 
silice nostri cordis excusserit, confovet eam et exsuscitat, suaque inspiratione confortat, 
volens omnes homines salvos fieri, et ad agnitionem veritatis venire (1 Tim. ii. 4).—Qui 
enim ut pereat unus ex pusillis non habet voluntatem, quomodo sine ingenti sacrilegio- 
putandus est, non universaliter omnes, sed quosdam salvos fieri velle- pro omnibus 7—C. 8: 
Adest inseparabiliter nobis semper divina prosectio, tantaque est erga creaturam suan» 
pietas creatoris, ut non solum comitetur eam, sed etiam praecedat jugi providentia.—Qui 
cum in nobis ortum quendam bonae voluntatis inspexerit, illuminat eam confestim, atque 
eonfortat, et incitat ad salutem, incrementum tribuens ei, quam vel ipse plantavit, vel 
nostro conatu viderit emersisse—Et non solun: sancta desideria benignus inspirat, sed 
etiam occasiones praestruit vitae, et opportunitatem boni effectus ac salutaris viae 
directionem demonstrat errantibus—C.9: Ut autem evidentius clareat, etiam per naturae 
bonum, quod beneficio creatoris indultum est, nonnunquam bonarum voluntatum prodire 
principia, quae tamen nisi a Domino dirigantur, ad consummationem virtutum pervenire- 
non possunt, Apostolus testis est-dicens: Velle adjacet mihi, perficere autem bonum non 
invenio (Rom. vii. 18).—C. 11: Haec duo, i. e., vel gratia Dei, vel liberum arbitrium, sibi 
quidem invicem videntur adversa, sed utraque concordant, et utraque nos pariter debere: 
suscipere, pietatis ratione colligimus, ne unum horum homini subtrahentes, ecclesiasticae- 
fidei regulam excessisse videamur. C.12: Unde cavendum est nobis, ne ita ad Dominum 
omnia sanctorum merita referamus, ut nihil nisi id quod malum atque perversum est 
humanae adscribamus naturae.—Dubitari ergo non potest, esse quidem omni animae 
naturaliter virtutum semina beneficio creatoris: inserta, sed nisi haec opitulatione Dei 
fuerint excitata, ad incrementam perfectionis non poterant pervenire. . Collat. iii. c. 12. 
Nullus justorum sibi sufficit ad obtinendam justitiam, nisi per momenta singula titubanti 
ei et corruenti fulcimenta manus suae supposuerit divina clementia. Wiggers, ii. 47. 

50 Ep. Prosperi ad August. among Augustine’s epistles, Ep. 225, Ep. opaauieat 226. 
Wiggers, if. 153. 

51 De Praedestinatione Sanctorum liber ad Prosperum. De Dono perseverantiae liber 
ad Prosperum et Hilarium (s. liber secundus de Praedest. Sanct.) 

52 Works: Epistola ad Rufinum de gratia et libero arbitrio. Carmen de ingratis. 
Epigrammata ii. in Obtrectatorem S. Augustini, all belonging to 429 and 430.—Epitaph- 
ium Nestorianae et Pelagianae haereseos, 431. Comp. Wiggers,. li. 169. Against new 
opponents (comp. Walch, v. 67. Geffcken, p. 32. Wiggers, ii. 184): Pro Augustine: 
responsiones ad capitula objectionam Gallorum calumniantium. Pro Augustini doctrina 
resp. ad capitula objectionum Vincentianarum (doubtless Vinc. Lirin.). Pro Augustino 
respons. ad excepta, quae de Genuensi civitate sunt missa. De gratia Dei et libero. 
Arbitrio lib. s. contra Collatorem (about 432, Wiggers, ii. 138), Besides. see Chronicon. 


CHAP. I.—THEOLOGY. III. § 88. NESTORIAN CONTROVERSY. 343 


with greater violence, but could not prevent the Semipela- 
gian doctrines from spreading farther, especially in Gaul. To 
these Semipelagians also belonged Vincentius Lirinensis (¢ 450) 
whose Commonitorium, composed in the year 434, was one of 
the works most read in the west as a standard book of genuine 
Catholicism.* 


Ill. CONTROVERSIES CONCERNING THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 
§ 88. 


NESTORIAN CONTROVERSY. 


Sources: Nestor’s own account (Evagrius Hist. eccl. i. 7) was made use of by Irenaeus 
(Comes, then from 444 to 448, bishop of Tyre) in his Tragoedia s. comm. de .rebus in 
synodo Ephesina, ac in Oriente toto Gestis. This last work of Irenaeus is lost; but the 
original documents appended to it were transferred in the sixth century, in a Latin 
translation, to the Synodicon (Varioram Epist. ad Conc. Eph. pertinentes ex MS. Casin. 
ed. Chr. Lupus. Lovan. 1682. 4,in an improved form ap. Mansi, v. 731, and in Theodoreti 
Opp. ed. Schulze, v. 608). Marius Mercator also has many fragments of Acts, Opp. P. 
ii. (see above, § 87, note 38). A complete collection of all the Acts is given in Mansi, 

' iv. p. 567, ss. and t. v—Account of this controversy by Ibas, bishop of Edessa, in the 
Epist. ad Marin Persam (mostly contained in the Actis Conc. Chalced. Act. x. ap. 
Mansi, vii. p. 241, ss.)—Liberatus’s (archdeacon in Carthage about 553) Breviarum 
causae Nestorianoram et Eutychianorum (ed. Jo. Garnerius. Paris. 1675. 8, ap. Mansi, 
ix. p. 659, and in Gallandii Bibl. PP. xii. p. 119).—Besides fags eon vii. c. 29, ss. Eva- 
gtius, i. c. 7, ss. 

Walch’s Ketzerhistorie, v. 289. Wendemann’s Gesch. d. ladhoieslabte,:t ii. 265. Min- 


v. d. Dreieinigkeit u. Menschw erdung Gottes in ihrer geachichs). Ratwickelung, i i. 693. 


In the Arian controversy the doctrine concerning Christ’s 
person had been touched upon, but without being fully devel- 
oped. _ When the Arians inferred from the Catholic doctrine 
of a human soul in Christ that there were two persons,! the 


{till 454).—Opp. ed. Jo. le Brun de Marette et D. Mangeaut. Paris. 1711. fol. cum var. 
lectt. ex Cod. Vatic. Romae. 1758. 8. 

53 Commonitorium pro catholicae fidei antiquitate et universitate adv. profanas omnium 
haereticor. novitates. Often published among others, cam August de Doctr. christ, ed. G. 
Calixtus. Helmst. 1629. 8 (ed. ii. 1655. 4) cum Salviani Opp. ed. St. Baluzius. (Paris. 
1633. ed. ii. 1669. ed. iii. 1684. 8) ed. Engelb. Kliipfel. Viennae. 1809. Herzog. Vratisl. 
1839. 8, comp. Wiggers, ii. 208. That this Vincentius is the one who was attacked by 
Prosper, and that even in the Commonitorium Semipelagian traces are found, has been 
proved by Vossius, Norisius, Natalis, Alexander, Oudinus de Soriptt. eccl. i. 1231, 
Geffcken, p. 53. Wiggers, ii. 195. On the contrary side, Act. SS. Maji, vol. v. p. 284, ss. 
Hist. littéraire de la meee, t. ii. p. 309. 

1 See § 83, note 28. » 


344 ; SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 324-451." 


Orientals indeed could not be led astray by this means from 
holding fast the human in Christ, as long as they remained true 
to their historico-exegetical principles ;* but the Nicenians in 
Egypt and the west began to give strong prominence to the 
unity of his Divine person, for the purpose of obviating that 
Arian objection,* and to consider Christ accordingly in all rela- 


2 So Eusebius of Emesa (§ 84, note 18) in the fragments in Theodoreti Eranistes Dial. 
iii. (Opp. ed. Schulze, iv. 258), and in the work de Fide adv. Sabellium,-in so far as we 
can venture to ascribe this work to him. See Thilo tber die Schriften des Euseb. y. Alex. 
u. des Euseb. v. Emisa, 8. 75. f 

’ Athanas. de Incarnat. verbi (Opp. ed. Montfaucon, ii. 1, ap. Mansi, iv. 689): ‘Ouo/o- 
yotuev Kai elvat ator vidv Tod Geod Kai Gedv Kata rveipa, vidy dvOpaérxov Kata capKa: 
ob dbo gicete Tov Eva vidv, uiay TpooKuYyATHY Kai piay axpockiyyTov’ GAAG piay gio. 
Tov Geot Aédyou cecapkwpévyny, Kai Tpockvvovuévyy peta Tio capKdc abTod mid mpoc- 
kuvycet. Since Cyril, a follower of Athanasius, appeals to this passage (lib. de recta fide 
ad Imperatrices, § 9), it has by this means the most important external testimony in its 
favor. Several writings were assigned to the Romish bishop Julius I., in which the unity 
existing in Christ was strongly expressed. There are still extant the Epist. ad Dionysium 
(ap. Mansii, ii. 1191. A. Maji Scriptt. vett. nova coll. vii. i. 144), cited as genuine by 
Gennadius (about 490), in which the uia gici¢ is expressly and plainly asserted; the 
Epist. ad Prosdocium (ex. cod. Oxon. ed. J. G. Ehrlich. Lips. 1750. 4), regarded as 
genuine by the council of Ephesus, by Cyril, Marius Mercator, Facundus, and Ephraem 
bishop of Antioch about 526 (Photii Cod. 229), which rejects the phrase dvOparo¢ id 
Geod xpooAndgbeic, and three fragments lately published by Majus, 1. c. vii. i. 165, the 
first and third of which are mentioned by Ephraem,1.c. How strongly also Hilary was 
inclined to the doctrine of one nature may be seen in Miinscher’s Dogmengesch. iv. 16. 
Baur’s Dreieinigkeit, i. 681. By this means the mode of expression in the writings of 
Julius is rendered more intelligible from the general tendency of the west at that time. 
—After Eutyches and the later Monophysites continually appealed to Athanasius, the 
Romish bishop Felix (270-275), and Julius (337-352), and to Gregory Thaumaturgus, as 
unam naturam Dei verbi decernentes post unitionem, whose testimonia Cyrillus in libb. 
adv. Diodorum et Theodorum has put together; (see Collatio Catholicoram cum Sever- 
ianis, A. D. p, 531, Mansi, viii. 820; a Jacobite collection of this kind translated from the 
Arabic, see Spicilegium, Rom. iii. 694), many Catholics began to asset that these testi- 
monies have been interpolated by Apollinarists (see Collatio, 1. c. p. 821. Leontius de 
Sectis, act. viii. Justinianus Imp. contra Monophys. in Maji Scriptt. vett. nov. coll. vii. i. 
302), notwithstanding Ephraem bishop of Antioch, about 526 (Photii Cod. 229), and Eulogius 
bishop of Alexandria, about 580 (Phot. Cod. 230), admit the genuineness of the passage of 
Athanasius and of the Ep. Julii ad Prosdocium. Leontius (contra Monophys. ap. Majus, 
vii. i, 143, s.) appeals to the testimony of Polemon, a disciple of Apollinaris, as proof that 
the passage ascribed to Athanasius belongs to Apollinaris. The place in question in 
Polemon may be completely put together from the two quotations p. 143 and p. 16, but it 
says something quite different. Polemon speaks against the inconsistency of those who 
asserted piav dictv Tod Aéyou cecapkwpévgy, and yet assume in Christ Gedy réAevov and 
avOpwrov téAevov, while Apollinaris had rightly rejected the two natures, and taught 
elvat adrov vidy rod Geo (as above in the passage of Athanasius). In short, Polemon 
meant to say, Athanasius had borrowed that doctrine from Apollinaris, but fell into an 
inconsistency with himself in so doing. Ap. Majus, l. c. p. 16, there is also a fragment of 
Apollinarii Epist. ad Jovian., in which that passage has been interpolated word for word 
as above; but it does not at all suit the construction, a sign that it has been inserted.— 
The moderns, however, especially Catholic writers, have retained the view that all those 
writings proceeded from Apollinaris. It has been defended in reference to the letters ef 
Julius, particularly by Muratori Anecdota graeca, p. 341, ss.; and with regard to all those 


CHAP. IlL—THEOLOGY. Ill. § 88. NESTORIAN CONTROVERSY. 345 


tions only as God.*| ‘When Apollinaris, following this tendency 
still farther, denied to Christ a reasonable human soul, his oppo- 
nents, it is true, were united in asserting that Christ is perfect 
God and man in one person, but in the east they were now ac- 
eustomed to distinguish the two natures, and the predicates used 
to describe them, with greater care; and the two most eminent 
men of the Antiochenian school, Diodore, bishop of 'Tarsus,® 
and Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia,® confirmed the accuracy. of 
this distinction by their writings, which were highly esteemed 
in the whole east; while in Egypt the formula of Athanasius, of 
one Divine nature made flesh, was maintained. On the other 
hand,’ Ambrose’ and Augustine? in the west endeavored, after 


passages above named by Le Quien Dissert. Damasc. ii. prefixed to his edition of Joannes 
Damasc. t.i. p. xxxiivss. Comp. on the other side Salig de Eutychianismo ante Eutychen. 
Guelpherbyt: 1723. p. 112, ss. p. 365, ss. 

* Thus Mary is called Georéxog by Eusebius de vita Const. iii. 43. Cyrillus Hieros. 
Catech. x. p. 146. Athanasius Orat. iii. contra Arian. c. 14, 33. Didymus de Trin. i. 31, 
94; ii. 4, 133, and Gregory of Nazianzum goes so far as to declare the man godless who 
will not employ this appellation. Heschyius, presbyter in Jerusalem (t 343), calls David 
Geordtwp (Photius Cod. 275). In many apocryphal writings James is called ideA¢66e0¢ 
(see Thilo Acta Thomae in the Notit. upon p. x. ss. Cf. Photius Cod. 142). 

5 Comp. § 84, note 21. See the fragments ap. Leontius contra Eutychianos et Nesto. 
rianos, in-Canisii Thesaur. monum. eccl. ed. Basnage, i. 591). 

§ See § 84, note 24. In Theodore’s confession of faith (Act. Conc. Ephesini, Act. vi. ap. 
Mansi, t. iv. p. 1347, in Latin in Marius Mercator, see Walch Bibl. symb. vetus, p. 203, ss.): 
Xp7y dé kai rept ti¢ olxovouiac, jv inép Tie huetépac owrnpiac év TZ Kata Tov dearéTHy 
Xptorov oixovopia 6 deordtyg éSeréhece Gede, eidévat, bre 6 dearérn¢ Oed¢ Adyog GvOpw- 
mov elAnde Tédevov, éx omépuatog évta ’ABpadu Kai Aavid,—éx woyij¢ te voepd¢ Kat 
capkéc ovvectGra dvOpwrivne bv GvOpwrov évTa Kal’ jude tiv dbotv, rveipatoc ayiov 
duvauer év TH THE TapOEvov uATpG diaTAacbévTa, yevouevov bd yuvatkd¢ Kal yevouevov 
bd vopov—aroppitac cuvipev éavt@. Gavdétov pév adbrov Kata vouov avOpdrwv ret- 
pacbjvat Katackevdoac, éyeipag dé éx vexpGv, kai dvayaydv eic obpavoy, cal xabioag 
éx’ defidv Tod Oeod, bbev dn inEepdva xdone irapyov dpync, Kal tovoiac—riv mapa 
mdonc Tig KTicewe déxeTar TpocKkivyoly, d¢ axOptorov Tpd¢ THY Oeiav diotv ExwY THY 
ovvdgetar, dvagope Geod Kai évvoig réong abté Tie Kiger THY mpooxdynotw amove- 
potonc. Kat odre dio gapev vlove, odre dbo Kupiouc. émedy eic Oedc Kar’ obciav b Bede 
Ayoc—OreEp adro¢ wepannives Te Kai weTéxyov Bedrnro¢ Kotvwvet THE viod mpoonyopiac 
Te Kal Tipe’ Kat KopLoc xar’ ovoiav 6 Gede Adyoc, @ ovvnupévog ovTo¢g Koltvwvet THE 
Titie.—"Eva toivuy tov kipiév gauev Kal Kdptov "Incotv Xprorév, di’ od Ta TévTa 
éyéveto’ xpwToTitac pév Tov Gedv Adyov voodyrec, Tov Kat’ ovciav vidv Be0d Kal Kiptov, 
auveriveobdvtec dé TO Andbér, "Incodiv Tov dxd Nalapéd, dv éypicev 6 Oedg mvetpaTt Kal 

 Ouvdpet, O¢ év TH TpdE TOV Bedv Adyov cvvadeia vidtHTO¢ Te wETéYOVTA Kai KUPLOTNTOE. 

“Oc kai dettepoc "Addu Kata Tov pwakdptov KaAeirat Tadiov, x.t. A. Comp. the fragments 

of this confession in the acts of the fifth general council at Constantinople, A.D. 553, ap. 

Mansi, ix. 203, and in Leontii contra Eutych. et Nestor. lib. iii. ap. Canisius-Basnage, i. 

585. The latter fragments, published only in Latin by Canisius, were published in the 
Greek original by Majus Scriptt. vett. nova coll: vi. 300. 
7 Mimscher’s Dogmengesch. iv. 32. Baur’s Dreieinigkeit, i. 653% 
mp. especially the fragments in Theodoreti Dial. ii. (ed. Schulze, iv. 139). 

s Augustini Ep. 169, ad Evodiam. § 7: Homo—in unitatem personae Verbi Dei~ . 


346 SECOND PERIOD:—DIV. L—A.D. 324-451, 


the example of the two Gregorys, to avoid the two rocks of this 
doctrine, viz. the division into two persons, and the non-recogni- 
tion of two natures; and thus the Gallic monk Zeporius, in Af- 
rica (about 426), occasioned the prelude of the Nestorian contro- 
versy, while forced to retract assertions by which the unity of 
Christ’s person appeared to be endangered.’® 

Nestorius, a presbyter of Antioch, by his elevation to the see 
of Constantinople, came into a difficult position (428), as far as 
he had both to contend against envious rivals, and was also 
obliged, »by his extraction and position,"! to undertake the task 
of completing the incipient restoration of Chrysostom’s honor, 
which Cyril,’* the nephew and worthy successor of Theophilus,’* 


coaptatus est, permanente tamen Verbo in sua natura incommutabiliter. § 8: Sieut in 
homine—anima et corpus una persona est, ita in Christo Verbum et homo una persona 
est. Et sicut homo, verbi gratia, philosophus non utique nisi secundum animam dicitur, 
nec ideo tamen absurde—dicimus philosophum caesum, philosopham mortaum—cum 
totum secundum carnem accidat, non secundum illud, quod est philosophus: ita Christus 
Deus—et tamen recte dicitur Deus crucifixus, cam hoc eum secundum carnem passum 
esse, non secundum illud, quo Dominus gloriae est, non habeatur incertum. Ep. 137 ad 
Volusianum, § 9: Ita inter Deum et homines mediator apparnuit, ut in unitate personae 
copulans utramque naturam, et solita sublimaret insolitis, et insolita solitis temperaret. 
§ 11:. Ergo persona hominis mixtura est animae et corporis: persona autem Christi 
mixtura est Dei et hominis. Enchiridion ad Laur. c. 34, 36. 

10 Comp. epistola Episcop. Africae ad Episc. Galliae and Leporii libellus emendationis 
(prim. ed. Jac. Sirmond. Paris. 1530. Mansi, iv. 517). In the latter it is said: Tametsi 
Christum filium Dei tunc etiam natum de sancta Maria non negaremus, sicut ipsi record- 
amini; sed minime attendentes ad mysterium fidei, non ipsum Deum hominem natum, 
sed perfectum cum Deo natum hominem dicebamus ; pertimescentes scilicet, ne divinitati 
conditionem adsignaremus humanam. His present faith: Confitemur dominum ac Deum 
nostrum Jesum Christum unicum filiam Dei, qui ante saecula natus ex patre est, novissimo 
tempore de Spiritu sancto et Maria semper virgine factum hominem, Deum natum: et 
confitentes utramque substantiam carnis et Verbi, unum eundemque Deum atque hominem 
inseparabilem pia fidei credulitate suscepimus ; et ex tempore susceptae carnis sic omnia 
dicimus, quae erant Dei, transisse in hominem, ut omnia, quae erant hominis, in Deum 
venirent ; ut hac intelligentia verbum factum sit caro, non ut conversione aut mutabilitate 
aliqua coeperit esse quod non erat, sed ut potentia diviniae dispensationis Verbum patris, 
nunquam a patre discedens, homo proprie fieri dignaretur, incarnatusque sit unigenitus 
secreto illo mysterio, quod ipse novit. Nostram namque est, credere, illius nosse. Ac sic, 
ut ipse Deus Verbum, totum suscipiens quod est hominis, homo sit, et adsumtus homo, 
totum accipiendo quod est Dei, aliud quam Deus esse non possit. Cf. Cassianus de Incar- 
natione Christi, i. 5. 

11 Thus, for instance, against Proclus and Philip, presbyters in Constantinople, both of 
whom had expectations of being raised to the episcopate. Socrates, vii. 26, 29. 

a. His writings : Commentaries of no value. Ady. Nestorium libb. 5. N ew contro- 
Homiliae (among others paschales 30). Biplatolas 61, hi Opp. ed. Jo. Aubert. Paris. 
1638. t. vii. fol. 

13 The admonition gddressed to him by the pious Isidore, abbot of Pelusium, serves to 
characterize him (lib. i: Ep. 370): Taicov rag Epidag* wa [add eic] oixeiac b8pewc duvvav 
iv Tapa Ovytév Kexpedotnoat, Cocav éxxAgoiav uebddeve, kai aidviov aiTH dixévorer ev 


CHAP. Il—THEOLOGY. ITI. § 88 NESTORIAN CONTROVERSY. 347 


bishop of Alexandria (} 444), considered derogatory to the honor 
of his see.“ He soon gave an opportunity to the malevolent 
watcher of his ee by denying the propriety of calling 
Mary @eordkoc.’® <A bitter but fruitless correspondence took 
place between them.’® Cyril resolved to make a bishop of Con- 


mpooynuate evoeBeiag Katacketale. It may refer to that affair of Chrysostom, or to the 
‘commencement of the controversy with Nestorius. 

14 The bishop of Constantinople, Atticus, about 420, had been obliged to introduce 
Chrysostom’s name into the Diptychs, after the example of Antioch and at the pressing 
request of the people, and invited Cyril to do the same (Attici Ep. ad Cyrillum, in Cyzilli 
Op. v. iii. 201). The latter, however, refused to eomply with the suggestion, desiring that 
the sentence pronounced on Chrysostom should be righteously maintained (1. c. p. 204). 
However, immediately after Nestor’s elevation, new demonstrations of honor were added, 
Marcellinus Comes (about 534) in Chronico ad ann. 428 (Chronica medii aevi ed. Roesler, i. 
262): Beatissimi.Joannis Episcopi dudum malorum Episcoporum invidia exulati apud 
Comitatum (at the imperial court) coepit memoria celebrari mense Sept. d. xxvi. That 
Cyril continued to regard the condemnation of Chrysostom as a righteous measure is shown 
by his Epistola ad Acaciam (ap. Mansi, v. 832. Theodoreti Opp. ed. Schulze, v. 699). 

15 Extracts from Nestor’s discourses in the Greek original are given in the Actis Syn. 
Ephesin. b. Mansi, iv. 1197... Nestorii Sermones in a Latin version ap. Marius Mercator 
(ed. Baluz. p. 53, ss.). From the first address: Oeoréxo¢ i.e., puerpera Dei s. genitrix 
Dei Maria, an autem dv@pwroréxoc i. e. hominis genitrix? Habet matrem Deus? Ergo 
‘excusabilis gentilitas matres diis subintroducens. Paulus ergo mendax de Christi deitate 
dicens a7dtwp, Gugtwp, avev yeveadoyiacg (Hebr. vii. 3). Non peperit creatura increa- 
bilem, sed peperit hominem deitatis instrumentum. Non creavit Deum Verbum Spiritus 
sanctus—sed Deo verbo templum fabricatus est, quod habitaret, ex virgine (according to 
John ii. 21). Est, et non est mortuus incarnatus Deus, sed illum, in quo incarnatus est, 
suscitavit: inclinatus est elevare, quod ruerat, ipse vero non cecidit. Si jacentem elevare 
volueris, nonne continges corpus corpore, et te ipsum illi conjungendo elisum eriges, atque 
ita illi conjunctus ipse manes quod eras? Sic et illud incarnationis aestima sacramentum. 
Propter utentem illud indumentum, quod utitur, colo, propter absconditam adorans quod 
foris videtur : inseparabilis ab eo, qui oculis paret, est Deus. Divido naturas, sed conjungo 
reverentiam. Dominicam itaque incarnationem intremiscamus, tiv Oeodéyor TH Gee 
Ady@ ovvOeoAoyGusv popd7y, i.e. susceptricem Dei formam una ac pari qua Deum Verb- 
um deitatis ratione veneremur, tanquam divinitatis vere inseparabilis simulacrum, tan- 
quam imaginem absconditi judicis. Duplicem confiteamur, et adoremus ut unum : duplum 
‘enim naturarum unum est propter unitatem. Sermo iii. (ib. p. 71): Ego natum et mor- 
tuum Deum et sepultum adorare non queo. Qui-natus est et per partes incrementorum 
temporibus eguit, et mensibus legitimis portatus in ventre est, hic hamanam habet na- 
taram, sed Deo sane conjunctam. Aliud est autem dicere, quia nato de Maria conjunctus 
erat Deus ille, qui est Verbum patris, caet. Comp. the extracts in the Actis Syn. Eph. p, 
1197: “Orav obv % Oia ypady usran Réyery H yévvyow Tod Xpiorod rHv éx Mapiag tHe 
napbévov, 7 Odvaror, obdauod'daiverat TiOeica Td Bedc, GAM 7 Xptarac, } wide, 7) Kkbptoc. 
Td mpoeAbeiv Tov Oedv Adyov é« TH¢ yproTroréKov raphévev, rapa Tig Beiacg EdiddxOny 
yoagne’ 7d 08 yevynbjvar Bedv && adripc, obdayod 2didGyOqY. 

16 Cyril proclaimed Nestor’s erroneous doctrine on all sides. “Thus he said to Acacius, 
bishop of Berhoea, that a zealous adherent of Nestorius had said in a church of Constan- 
tinople: ef rig Aéyer OeoToKov tiv Maptar, dvG0eua Eorw. The hoary Acacius sought in 
vain to exorcise the storm (Epist. ad Cyril. in Cyrilli Opp. v. iii. 63): it was the duty of 
bishops, kataoreiAa tiv tEayyeAOeicay dwrv, brw¢ pL} mpbgaatc doby rote Seacxivew 
cal Ovarépveww tiv éxxAnoiav Tod Geo éroipwe éyovet. Many in Constantinople ovvy~ 
yopelv doxodor TO bybévee bnrG, of obx évayting éxovts “ard dudvorav TH Gnaatahixg 
miorel, ete. ~ 


846 «> SECOND PERIGD.—DIV. 1—A.D.' 324-451. °- 


stantinople once more feel the superior weight of Alexandria. 
By misrepresenting the doctrines of Nestor to Caelestine, bishop 
of Rome,'’ he created the prejudice among the westerns, or at 
least strengthened it, that Nestorianism was only an offshoot of 
Pelagianism,'* which at once sealed Nestor’s fate in the west. 


17 Cyrilli Epist. ad Caelestium and Commoniterium datum Possidonio (his messenger) 
ap. Mansi, iv. 1012, ss. and p. 548, and ap. Coustant. In this last we read: ‘H Neoropiov 
miotic, uaGAAov O82 Kaxodosia, rabtav Eye THY Odvayty. Pyatv bri 6 Gede Adyoc TpoEyVO- 
“dc, tt 6 «x THe dyiag mapbévov yevvduevog Gytog éoTat Kal péyac, el¢ TodT’ é&eAéEaTo 
abrov, Kai mapeokebace wey yevvnbqvar diva dvdpoc ék THe Taplévor, éyapicarto dé abTa 
TO KaAcioba toic aiTod dvéuacty, Kai Hyeipev abrov. “Dore xdv évavOporjouc Aéynrat 
6 wovoyerang Tod Ocod Adyoc, bt ovrvay dei, O¢ GvOpdrw dyiv TH éx THE TapHévonv, Oia 
tobTo Aéyerat tvavOpwrnqoa. “Qorep d& ovvav toig mpodyrtatc, obTw, dyal, Kal TobTH 
Kata peifova ovvadgetav. Acad TodTo devyer TavTayxod TO Aéyety THY Evwowy, GA’ dvoudler 
ovvagetav, Gorep éotiv O¢ &wbev, Kai Oe Gv Aéyn Tpdc "Igoodv, 671. Ka” Oe Hv peta 
Moio7, obra¢ couat wera cod (Jos. i. 5). Kpinrwr d2 ryv doéBerav Aéyet, OTL Ek uNTpac 
ovvqy abt. Aid TovTo ovTe Oedv GAnOivdv abro¢ sivas Aeyet, GAN we év ebdokia Tob 
Geod KexAnuévoy obtac’ Kdv Kiptog Ovoudotn, obtwc maAty aitov BobAeTat Kipiov, O¢ 
tov Geod Adyou yaploauévov aite TO Kaheioba Kai objTtw. My oyoiv, bTL, dep Aéyouer, 
anobaveiv ixép Hudy Tov vidv Tod Oeod, kai dvactivar’ 6 GvOpwroc dréOave, Kai 6 
avOpwrog avéoty, kai obdév TobTO Tpd¢ Tov Tod Geod Adyov.—xai év Toi¢ uvaETHpioLE COUG 
éotiv dvOpamov To xpokeiuevov’ tucic O&. miaTebouev, 6TL TOD Adyov éoti odps Gworoteiv 

boxbowca bid TobTO, bre Tod Ta TavTE GworroLobvTog Adyou yéyove caps Kai.aiua. Nestor 
replies to this (Synodieon, c. vi. Mansi, v. 762): Ille vero (Cyrillus), omittens mihi per 
epistolam declerare, si quid ei tamquam blasphemum vel impium videbatur debere notari, 
eonvictionum terrore perniotus, et adjutrices ob hoc perturbationes exquirens, ad Romanum 
Caelestinum convertitur, quippe ut ad simpliciorem quam qui posset vim dogmatum sub- 
tilius penetrare. Ed ad haee inveniens viri illius simplicitatem, circumfert pueriliter 
aures ejus illusionibus literarum, olim quidem nostra conscripta transmittens, quasi ad 
demonstrationem convictionem, quibus contradici non posset, tanquam ego Christum 
purum hominem definirem: qui certe legem inter ipsa meae ordinationis initia contra 
€0s, qui Christum purum hominem dicunt, et contra reliquas haereses innovavi (Cod. Theod. 
xvi. v. 65). Excerptiones vero intertexens sermonum conscripta composuit, ne societatis 
compactione detegeretur illata calumnia, et quaedam quidem allocutionibus nostris adjici- 
ens, aliquorum vero partes abrumpens, et illa contexens, quae a nobis de dominica human- 
atione sunt dicta, velut de puro ea homine dixerimus, etc. 

18 In the year 430 Cassian wrote, desired by the Romish archdeacon (subsequently 
bishop) Leo, his libb. vii. de Inearn. Christi adv. Nestorium.(cf. Wiggers de Jo. Cassiano, 
p. 28, s.), although it is probable he was acquainted with Nestor’s heresy merely from that 
Egyptian description of it. Lib. i.c. 3, he says of a new heresy which had broken out at 
Bellay (Beligarum urbe), to which, according to chap. iv., Leporius also belonged: Pecu- 
liare re proprium supradictae illias haereseos, quae \ex Pelagiano vixisse, eo progressi 
sunt, ut assererent, homines, si velint, sine peccato esse posse. Consequens enim exist- 
imabant, utsi homo solitarius Jesus Christus sine peccato fuisset, omnes quoque homines 
sine Dei adjutorio esse possint, quicquid ille homo solitarius sine consortio Dei esse potuis- 
set.—Unde advertit novus nunc jam, non novae haereseos auctor, qui Dominum Salvator- 
emque nostrum solitarium hominem natum esse contendit, idem se omnino dicere, quod 
Pelagianistae ante dixerunt: et consequens errori suo esse, ut qui utique sine peccato 
solitarium hominem Jesum Christum vixisse asserit, omnes quoque per se homines sine 
peccato posse esse blasphemet——Nec dubium id est, re ipsa penitus declarante. Hine 
enim illud est, quod intercessionibus sujs Pelagianistarum querelas fovet, et scriptis suis 
gausas illorum asserit, quod subtiliter his, vel ut verius dixerim, subdole patrocinatur, et 
consanguipse sibi improbitati improbo suffragatyr affectu, etc. Comp. § 87, note 41. 


CHAP. IL—THEOLOGY. Ill. § 88. NESTORIAN CONTROVERSY. 349 


- Jn vain did Nestor represent to Caelestine that he rejected the 
expression Oeoréxo¢ only in its false acceptation.** He was de- 
clared a heretic at synods held at Rome and Alexandria (430), 
and Cyril published twelve anathemas, in which he sought to 
establish the true doctrine of Christ’s person against Nestor’s 
heresy.*° _ These anathemas were not only answered by Nestor 


Hence Lib. v. ¢. 1, haeresim illam Pelagianae haereseos discipulam atque imitatricem ; and 
c. 2, to Nestor: Ergo vides, Pelagianum te virus vomere, Pelagiano te spirita sibilare. In 
like mauner Prosperi epitaphium Nestoriani et Pelagiani: 


Nestoriana lues successi Pelagianae, 
Quae tamen est utero progenerata meo- 
Infelix miserae genetrix et filia natae, 
Prodivi ex ipso germine, quod peperi, etc. 


19 Nestorii Epist: iii. ad Caelestin. (ap. Mansi, iv. 1021, v. 725, ap. Coustant, among the 
Epp. Caelest. no. vi. vii. and xv.) From the Epist. 1: Unde et nos non modicam corrup- 
tionem orthodoxiae apud quosdam hic reperientes, et ira et lenitate circa aegros quotidie 
utimur. Est enim aegritude non parva, sed affinis putredini Apollinaris et Arii. Domin- 
icam enim in homine unionem ad cujusdam contemperationis confusionem passim com- 
miscent: adeo ut et quidam apud nos clerici—aperte blasphement Deum Verbum Patri 
homousion, tamquam originis initium de Christotoco virgine sumsisset, et cum templo suo 
aedificatus esset, et consepultus. Carnem dicunt post resurrectionem suam non mansisse 
carnem, sed in naturam transiisse deitatis—Si quis autem hoc nomen Theotocon propter 
natam humanitatem conjunctam Deo Verbo, non propter parientem proponet; dicimus 
quidem hoc vocabulum in ea, quae peperit, non esse conveniens (oportet enim veram 
matrem de eadem esse essentia ac ex se natum): ferri tamen potest hoc vocabulum—eo 
quod solum nominetur de virgine hoc verbum propter inseparabile templum Dei Verbi ex 
ipsa (natum), non quia ipsa mater sit Verbi Dei: nemo enim antiquiorem se parit. From 
Epist. iii: Ego autem ad hance quidem vocem, quae est OeoTdxoc, nisi secundum Apol- 
linaris et Arii furorem ad confusionem naturarum proferatur, volentibus dicere non resisto: 
nec tamen ambigo, quin haec vox @eorékog illi voci cedat, quae est xptororéKoc, tamquam 
prolatae ab Angelis et Evangeliis—Placuit, vero, Deo adjuvante etiam synodum inex- 
cusabiliter totius orbis terrarum indicere propter inquisitionem aliarum rerum ecclesiastic- 
arum: nam dubitatione verborum non aestimo habituram inquisitionem difficultates, nee 
impedimentum esse ad tractatum divinitatis Domini Christi. 

20 With the synodical letter relating to the same in Cyrilli Opp. v. iii. 67. Mansi, iv. 
1067, Baumgarten’s theol. Streitigk. ii. 770. Cf. Salig de Eutychianismo ante Eutychen, 
p- 324: i. Ei tic ody dpodoyet Oedv civar kara GAROetay Tov ’EupavovyA, xai da TodTo 
Geotéxov Thy dyiav mapbévov: yeyévynke yap capkikG¢ odpxa yeyovéta Tov éx Beod 
Abyov’ Gvabeua éotw. ii: Ei tig oby dpodAoyei, capki Kal’ irdcracty Avdcba Tov ék 
Geod TaTpoe Adyov, Eva Te elvat Xptorév wera tH¢ diag capKodc, Tov aitov Sndrovére Oedv 
Te 60d Kai GvOpwrov, &. &. iii. Wi tic éxi tod évdg Xprcrod draipet tag Wroordcere peta 
THY Evwo., worn ovvartuv abTac ovvadgeia TH KaTa THY akiav, Hyovv aifevtiay } dvva- 
oreiav, Kai obyi 67 udAdov ovvédw TH Kal’ Evwoty dvoikyy, &. é. iv. Ei tig mpoodrore 
duciv, Hyovv brootdceo, Tac Te év Toic-ebayyedtKoic Kal drooTOALKOI¢ oVvyypaupact 
Stavéuer wvdc, } éxi Xpioto napa tdv dyiwv Aeyouévac, } wap’ aitod wept éavTod, Kai 
Tag pev O¢ GvOpdrw Tapa Tov ék Beod Abyov idixGe voovuévy mpocdrret, Tag d2 Oe Oeo- 
TpeTete “6v@™ TH éx Oeod waTpoc 2Oyw, d. & Vv. El Tig TOAUE Aeyewv Geoddpov dvOpaxov 
tov Xptorov, kal obyi dy waA2ov Oedv eivar Kata GAAGeLav, de vidv éva kai dicet, Kad 
yéyove odps 6 A6yoe, kal Kexowévnke waparAnotac juiv aiuatog Kai capkoc, d.é. vi. Ei 
Teg TOAMG Aéyew Oedv } deondrny eivar Tod Xptorod tov éx Neod matpdc Adyov, Kal obyi 
67) waddov Tov abriv duodoyet Oedv duod te Kali GvOpwror, be yeyovotog capKd¢ Tod 


350 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D! 32-451. 


in as many anti-anathemas,”' but they also excited great com- 
motion among the Syrian bishops. Nestor had explained him- 
self satisfactorily to John, bishop of Antioch, concerning the 
admissibility of the expression @eoréxo¢: while Cyril seemed en- 
tirely to do away with the distinction of natures in Christ. 


Réyou Kara tac ypadac, &.& vii Ez tic ogowv, O¢ dvOpwrov évepyjcbar Tapa Tod Oeod 
Abyou Tov ‘Incotv, kai THY Tod povoyevotc evdosiav repiAdOat, Oc Erepov map’ abrov 
éndpyovra, a. &. viii. El tig toAue Aéyewv, Tov dvadggbévta dvOpwrov avptpockvveia- 
Oat deiv 7H GeO, Ady, Kai cuvdosalecGar Kai ovyxpnuativery Bedv, O¢ Erepov Etépw (TO 
yap “ Xiv” det mpocriléuevov, rovto voeiv dvayKaler) Kai obyi 67 uGAAOVY wig TpooKr- 
vioee Tivd Tov ’ExpavovgnA, kai piav aiTd thy dokodoyiay dvaréuret, Kad yéyove Gaps 
6 Aéyoc, a. & ix. Ei tig dyot, tov Eva Kbpiov "Incotv Xprordv dedosdcbat rapa tod 
mvetvuatoc, a aAAoTpia duvduer TH OL’ abtod Ypomevor, Kai map’ abtod AaBovta 7d 
évepyeiv dvvacbat kata rvevpdtwov Gxabdptwv, Kai Ta TAnpodiv ei¢ dvOparove Tag Geoan- 
usiac, Kai obyt 6% pa2AAov idiov airod 76 xvedud Oot, dv od Kai évipynoe Tuc Geoon- 
ustac, &. & xX. ’Apytepéa Kai aréotoAoyv tig duodoyiacg huGv yeyevvqobat Xpiorov 7 
Oeia Réyer ypady, Kpookekouixévac Te brép HuGv éavTov eic douHv ebwdiac TH Ged Kat 
mwatpl. et Tic Totvuv dpytepéa Kai GrdéoToAev Huay yeyevvpobai oynotv obx abTov Tov éx 
Geod Aéyov, 6re yévove cadpf Kat Kal’ Rude GvOpwroc, GAM Oe Erepov wap’ abtov idiKG¢ 
civOpwrov éx yuvatkdc: 7 el Tic Aéyet, Kai bnep EavTod TpoceveyKeiv abtov THY Tpoadgo- 
par, kai odyt 67 paAAov drép udvev judv~ ob yap av édeqOn mpoodopac 6 uy eid Guap- 
viav' d.& xi. Ei tig oby Guodoyei THY tod Kupiov adpKa Gworotdy elvat, Kai idiav 
abtod Tov é« Geod maTpd¢ Adyov, GAA’ we étépov Tivd¢g Tap’ abtov, cvvnypévov pev 
aiT@ xara thy akiav,qZyovv w¢ pévyv Oeiav évoixnoty éoynkdtog: Kai odyi 07 waAAOv 
{worody, de Eoquev, 6tt yéyovev idia Tod Adyou Tod Ta TavTa Cwoyoveiv icytovTos, d. é 
xii. Ei tic oby dpodoyei Tov tod Ceod Adyov mabéyTa capKi, Kai éoravpwpévov capki, 
kai Gavarov yevoduevoy capki, yeyovéra Te TpwrdToKov Ek TOY vexpGv, Kad Con Té EoTL 
xai Cworotd¢ Ge Oedc, a. & Cyril’s own doctrine is most apparent from his second letter 
to Succensus (Opp. v. iii. 141). The Logos became a perfect man, but continued notwith- 
standing unaltered, one and the same. The two natures must be distinguished only xara 
udvav tiv Oewpiav. P.145: "Eorw dé juiv eic mapdderyua 6 xa Hude dvOpwroc. dio 
aay yap én’ abtod voodpuev Tae dicetc, piav pév THE WoyxRe, érépav 62 TOD CdmaTtog* GAN 
ty WiAaic dedévte évvoiaic—obn va pépog Tibeuev Tag GboELC—GAW évdc eivat vooi- 
uev> Oote Tae dbo pnKéte pev eivat Oddo, Ov’ dudoiv O8 TO év &xoTEXeicOat Cdov. Odixodir, 
xdv el Aéyouev GvOpwrdbrytoc gbowv Kai GedtyTog éxi Tod ’Eupavov7jA, GAN’ 4 avOpwrdrys 
yéyovev idia tod Aéyov, Kai ele vide voeirat odv abr7. 

21 Ap. Marius Mercator, ed. Baluz. p. 142, ss. Baumgarten’s theol. Streitigk. ii. 774. 
I. Si quis eum, qui est Emmanuel, Deum verbum esse dixerit, et non potius nobiscum 
Deum, hoc est, inhabitasse eam quae secundum nos est naturam, per id quod unitus est 
massae nostrae, quam de Maria virgine suscepit: matrem etiam Dei verbi, et non potius 
ejus, qui Emmanuel est, sanctam virginem ‘nuncupaverit, ipsamque Deum verbum in car- 
nem versum esse, quam accepit ad ostentationem Deitatis suae, ut habitu: inveniretur ut 
homo, anath. sit. II. Si quis in verbi Dei conjunctione, quae ad carnem facta est, de loco 
in locum mutationem divinae essentiae dixerit esse factam ; ejusque divinae naturae car- 
nem capacem dixerit, ac partialiter unitam carni: aut iterum in infinitum incircumscriptae 
naturae coextenderit carnem ad capiendum Deum, eandemque ipsam naturam et Deum 
dicat et hominem, anath. sit. IV. Si quis eas voces, quae tam in evangelicis quam in epis- 
tolis apostolicis de Christo, qui est ex utraque natura, scriptae sunt, accipiat tanquam de 
una natura: ipsique Dei verbo tentat passiones tribuere, tam secundum carnem, quam 
etiam deitatem, anath. sit.. VI. Siquis post incarnationem Deum verbum alterum quem. 
piam praeter Christum nominaverit; servi sane formam initium non habere a Deo Verbo, 
et increatam, ut ipse est, dicere tentaverit, et non magis ab ipso creatam confiteatur, tam- 
quam a naturali domino et creatore et Deo, quam et suscitare propria virtute promisit 


CHAP. IL—THEOLOGY: IIL. § 88. NESTORIAN-CONTROVERSY. 351: 


Hence Cyril’s anathemas were generally rejected as erroneous 
in the east. Andrew, bishop of Samosata, and T'heodoret, bishop 
of Cyprus (¢ 457),” wrote refutations of them.” 

Under these circumstances, Theodosius II. called a general 
council at Ephesus (431).* Cyril hastened hither with a nu- 
merous band of adherents. The bold remonstrances of the honest 


Solvite, dicens, templum hoc, et in triduo suscitabo illud (Jo. ii. 19), anath. sit. VIII. Si 
quis servi formam pro se ipso, hoc est secundum propriae naturae rationem, colendami 
esse dixerit, et rerum omnium dominam: et non potius per societatem, qua beatae et ex 
se naturaliter dominicae unigeniti naturae conjuncta est, veneratur; anath. sit. XI. Si 
quis unitam carnem verbo Dei ex naturae propriae possibilitate vivificatricem esse dix- 
erit; ipso Domino et Deo pronunciante: Spiritus est, qui vivificat, caro nihil prodest (Jo. 
vi. 64); anath. sit. Spiritus est Deus, a Domino pronunciatum est. Si quis ergo Deum 
Verbum carnaliter secundum substantiam carnem factum esse dicat (hoc autem modo et 
specialiter custodite: maxime Domino Christo post resurrectionem suam discipulis suis 
dicente: Palpate ‘et videte, quia spiritus ossa et carnem non habet, sicut me videtis 
habere, Luc. xxiv. 39); anath. sit. 

22 His works: valuable commentaries, especially on the Epistles of Paul (J. F. Chr. 
Richter de Theodoreto Epist. Paulin. interprete comm. Lips. 1822. 8). Historical writings, 
Hist. Eccl. libb. 5. PA.00e0¢ toropia 8. historia religiosa. Haereticarum fabularum libb. 
5. Polemic: ’Epavorig jt TLoAdpopgog libb. iv. ‘EAAnvixay Oepareutixy nabnudtov 
disputt. xii. (ad codd. MSS. rec. Thom. Gaisford. Oxon. 1839.8). Epistles—Opp. ed. 
Jac: Sirmond. Paris. 1642. voll. iv. fol. v. s. auctarium add. Joh. Garnier. Paris. 1684. 
Ed. J. L. Schulze et J. A. Noesselt. Halae. 1769-1774. t. v. 8. 

23 That of Andrew in Latin ap. Mercator, p. 220, ss. Greek fragments in Cyrilli Apolo- 
geticus.—That of Theodoret see in his works, Opp. ed. Schulze, t. v. p. 1, ss. In the 
latter we read: Ad. i. ‘Hucic d?—ob odpxa dtcet yeyovévat, ovdé cic cdpKa uwetaBAnOA- 
vat tov Gedy Adyov dayév.—dan’ GvédaBe oapxa Kal éoxjvocev ev juiv,—oix abri¢ 
gboer éx tijg mapbévov yeyévynras ovAAngseic, kai diarAacbeic,—dAn’ Eauto. vady év rH 
mapGevixg yaotpt dtanAdoac, ovvav TH TAacbévtTt Kai yevvnbévte: od Yaps Kai THYV 
dyiav éixeivyy mapbévov Oeotéxov mpocayopetboper, ody O¢ Oedv dboet yevvycacay, dA?) 
O¢ GvOpwrov, TH dvarAdoavtt aitov, 7vapévoy bed, Ad. ii—THv kaP iréoracw Eve- 
ow TavTaracw dyvotuev, o¢ Sévnv.—el 62 todito BobAetar Aéyetv Ota Tie KaP br6- 
oractv évecewe 6 TaiTa yevvncac, O¢ Kpdoig capKdg Kali Bedrntog yéyover, avTEepoipuev 
obyv mdon mp08uuia Kai THY BAacgnuiay éhéyEouev. Ad. iii. Svvddera Kai civodoc ovdevt 
’ dvagépovowy.—év pév mpdcwroyv Kai Eva vidv Kal. Xpiotov duodoyeiv eboeBéc: dio d2 Tag 
évabeicac broordcetc, eitovy diceic Aéyetv, odK GToTOY, GAAd Kat’ aitiavy dKdAovbor. 
Ad. iv.—T@ pév GcorperGc cipnuéva Kai wenpaypéva TO Oe Abyw mpocdwouev: Ta dé 
Tarewac eipnuéva kal merpaypéva dotAov popdm mpocapydcouev. Ad. v. Tdv Beogdpov 
GvOparov, & moAAoic Tov Gyiwy matépwr eipnuévov, ob rapattotueba’—Kadoipuev de 
Geogépov dvOparor, oby w¢ uepixiy tiva Beiav xdpiv desdpevor, GAM Oe naécav fvapévgv 
Exovra Tot viod THY OedtyTa. Ad. xii. "Exabe 7 Tod dobAov popoy, ovvobcne abitH dnAov- 
Ott Tig TOD Osod mopoyc,—olxecoupévye de dia THY Evwowy Ta TaOjpara: From Cyril’s 
Apology in answer to Theodoret. Ad. i—Ei Aéyowuev capxa yevéobar tiv Adyov, ob 
cbyxvatv, ob dupudv, ob TporHy, obK GAAoiwoy cvuBivar wept abTov gape : nvacbar dé 
KGAdov adpdotwc Kal aropp_ra¢g cdyate Woynv Exovtt voepdv. Ad. iii— “AvOparoy 
ovv7ig0at Ge cyetixGe dtateivovta, kata pdovnv Thy asiad, Hyouv abbevtiay, kal Kata 
THY THe viétnTO¢ éuwvupiay.—KaTa boty, TOdT’ ~aTLDV, Ob OYETLKOC, GAAG Kata GAHOELav. 
Theodoret wrote besides, Pentalogium s. libb: v. Incarnationi Verbi adv. Cyrillum et Pa- 
tres Conc. Ephesini (Fragments ap. Mercator). 

2* On the history of it, see Salig de Eutychianismo ante Eutychen, p. 234. Haelig Bib- 
liothek. d. Kirchenversamml. des 4ten u. 5ten Jahrh. iv. 1. 


352° SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. 1L—A.D. 324~451. 


Isidore, abbot of Pelusium (+ 440),*° had no effect upon him ;*° 
but listening only to the promptings of revenge he proceeded to 
condemn Nestor without waiting for the arrival of the eastern 
bishops.” When they arrived, however, they assembled with 
John at their head, and deposed Cyril and his principal assistant, 
Memnon, bishop of Ephesus. 'The weak Theodosius had been 
incensed at Cyril till now, but the latter not only contrived to 
bring over to his side the impetuous monks at Constantinople,” 
but also to make many friends at court by bribes and other arti- 
fices. The emperor at first confirmed the three depositions ; but 
was afterward prevailed on to re-instate Cyril and Memnon in 
their offices. Nestor, on the other hand, was obliged to with- 
draw into his former cloister at Antioch. 

The consequence of these measures was a division between the 
east and. the other provinces, especially Egypt. 'The Orientals, 
however, were not sufficiently united to withstand their oppo- 
nents, backed as the latter were by the court. Rabulas, bishop 
of Edessa, went over to Cyril’s party, and even began to show 


25 Isid. Pelus. Epistolarum libb. iv. ed. Conr. Rittershusius. Heidelb. 1605. fol. Epistt. 
hactenus ineditae ed. ab A. Schotto. Anty. 1623. 8, and Francof. 1629. fol. Editions of all 
together: Isid. Pelus. de Interpretatione divinae scripturae epistolarum libb. v. Paris. 
1638 (incorrect). Venet. 1745. fol. Cf. H. A. Niemeyer de Isidori Pelusiotae vita, scriptis 
et doctrina. Halae. 1825. 8. Thirteen letters in an old Latin version have been put into 
the Synodicon, as bearing on this controversy (prim. ed. Mansi, v. p. 758). See the origi- 
nals, lib. i. Ep. 25, 102, 310, 311, 323, 324, 370, 404, 405, 419; iv. 166, 211; v. 268. 

26 Lib. i. Ep. 310 (Latin in the Synodicon, 1. c.): MpoomdGera wiv ob d&vdopxet, avtt 
mdbeva 08 bAwe oby bpd. el Toivuy éxarépac Anung Bova. Kabapeidoat, uy Biaiac aroda 
oeic éxBiBale, GAAG Kpioe: dikaia Tac aitiag éxitpepov. TloAAol yap ce Kkwpwdodor Tv 
cuvetheyuévor eic "Edecov, oc oixeiay duvvduevov éxOpav, a2’ od 7a ’Incod Xpiotow 
bp00ddgu¢ Cnrodvra. ddeAgidoic éoTi, Pact, OeodiAov, upodtpevocg éExeivov THY yyeunr- 
Sorep yap éxeivoc paviav cagi xateckédace Tob Oeoddpov Kai OeogiAode¢ lwdvvov, obra 
érOvpet Kavyjoacbat Kai obroc, ei Kal TOAd TOV KpLvouévarv éoTi TO Otddopov. Cf. lib. 
i. Ep. 370. Concerning Isidore’s own doctrine see Niemeyer, 1. c. p. 173, ss..22, s. Vater 
in the kirchenhist. Archiv. 1825. S. 248, ff. 

27 The sentence may be seen in Mansi, iv. 1212: ‘O BAaodnunbele toivuy rap’ abrod 
K0pto¢g Rudy "Inoove Xptorog Spice dia tio mapovone dytwtarne ovvddov, GAAGTptov elvat 
tov abtov Neoréptov Tod éxioxomiKod a&idiuaroc, Kal rayti¢ ovAddyov lepatixod. The 
Egyptian party (comp. the decisions p. 1139, ss.) thought they had in their favor the ex- 
press words of the Nicene creed, namely, e6v—évavOpwryoarta, rabévra, etc. Subse- 
quently, the adherents of Caelestius and Pelagius were often condemned with those of 
Nestorius, without express notification of their doctrine. See Mansi, iv. 1320, 1328, 1334, 
1338, 1472, 1474. ' 

28 From the epistle of Epiphanius, archdeacon of Cyril, to Maximinian the new bishop 
of Constantinople (Mansi, vy. 987. Theodoreti Opp. ed. Schulze, v. 869), it is clear that 
many presents were sent from Alexandria (edAoyiar) to the empress, her ladies, and 
influential courtiers. Clerici, qui hic sunt, contristantur, quod Ecclesia Alexandrina nudata 
sit hujus causa turbelae, et debet praeter illa, quae hinc transmissa sunt, Ammonio Comiti 
auri libras mille quingentas. 





CHAP. IL—THEOLOGY.. Ill. $88. NESTORIAN CONTROVERSY. 353) 


his zeal by also attacking the writings of Theodore of Mopsues- 
tia, so much yalued in the east, as the proper sources of Nestor’s 
error. Even John made peace with Cyril (433). The latter ac- 
commodated himself so far as to subscribe the Antiochene con-— 
fession of faith ;29 the former sacrificed his friend Nestor. .'The 


29 See Mansi, v. 305 (it was the creed put forth by Theodoret in Ephesus, and presented 
to the emperor by the Oriental party. _Synodicon, c. 17 ap. Mansi, v. 783, comp. Alexandri 
Epist. ad Theodoret. in Synod. ¢. 96, ibid. p. 878): ‘OuoAoyotuev toryapoiv Tov Kipiov 
Rudy "Inoovv Xpiorov, Tov vidv tod Oeod, Tov povoyer#, Bedv TéAevov kai GvOpwrov TéAerov 
éx puyic Aoyuhe Kal Gépatoc’ xpd aldver puév ix tod natpic yevynbévta Kata THY 
Geérnra, éx’ éoydtav d& TOV quEpGy Tiv abrov dl hudc, Kai bid THY HuETépav GuTnpiav 
éx Mapiac tij¢ mapbévov Kara THY dvOpwrdrynta’ duootc.ov TO Tarp Tov abToy Kara THY 
GedtyTa, Kai Guoovatov Huiv Kara THY GvOpardtynTa: dbo yap dbcewr Evworg yéyove’ dtd 
&va Xpioror, éve vidv, éva Kbplov dbuodoyotuev. Kara ravrny tv tig dovyxitov évacewg 
évvotav sodoyotmev THY ayiav napbévov OeotéKov, did Td TOV Osdv Adyov capKwbRvas 
kal évavOparqjoat, Kai && abti¢g tig cvAAgwWews évGcar éavTt@ tiv 8& abtijg AndbévTa 
vabv~ tag 02 ebayyedtKni Kai drocToAtKadc repi tod Kvpiov gwvac, louev Tod¢ BeoAdyouc 
dvdpac, Ta¢ wey Kotvorototvrac, dc bd’ évde mpocdrov, Ta¢ d2 dtatpodvrac, He ext dbo 
dbcewr’ kai Tag wév Oeoxpercic Kata THy GedtyTa Tod Xpiorod, Tac dé TuTElvac KATA 
tiv avOpwrétnta abrod mapadidévtac. Many Egyptians were dissatisfied with this © 
formula. Liberatus Breviar. c. 8: Culpaverunt Cyrillum, cur susceperit ab orientalibus’ 
Episcopis duarum confessionem naturarum, quod Nestorius dixit.et docuit. To this must 
be referred Isidori lib. i. Ep. 324, ad Cyrillum, because the latter has been taken into the 
Rynodican (Mansi, v. 700) : XpH oe, Oavydore, & érpentov Bévew del, obre 668 mpodidévTa 

_r& obpavia, ovte cavt@ évavtiov datvouevov. ei yap Ta viv yeypaupéve cot Toi¢ TpoTé- 
poic dvretetdcetac, 7 KoAaKeiacg Gavyayn brebbvvoc, ebyepeiac 7 OidKovoc, Kevicg usv d6Enc 
HTTOMEVOC, TOV pwEeydAwy Oé Gyinv GOAnTov tobe ayévag ob Hipnodpevoc, ot Tov dravTa 
Biov ér’ dAdorpiac Kaxovyeiobar bréuewvar, 7 Kaxddofov dpévynua Kav hEXpUE & wTwDv eicdgé- 
acOa:. - Against such charges Cyril defends himself at greatest length in the® Epist. ad 
‘Acacium’ Episc. Melitenae (Opp. v. iii. 105. Mansi, v. 310: besides in Epist. ad Eulo. 
~ gium Presb. Constantinop. (Opp. v. iii. 123), ad Rufum Ep. Thessalonic. and ad Maximum 
Diac. Antioch. (in Maji Scriptt. vet. nova coll. viii. ii. 138). In the two latter he confesses 
he had accommodated himself to the prevailing notions. The orientals accordingly per- 
ceived in the adoption of that confession of faith a retraction on the part of Cyril. See 
Ibae Epist. ad Marin. in Actis Conc. Chalc. act. x. Mansi, vii. 247, especially Theodoretj 
Ep. ad Joannem Epise. Antioch, 4.D. 433 (Ep. 171 in Theod. Opp. ed. Schulze, iv. 1354, a — 
complete copy in Latin in Bynodico, 1. c.-v. 747): "Ev Kouvg dvayvovteg Ta Alyoxtia 
yoduuara, kai éSerdoavtec abTtov dxpiBac Thy dtdvotav, ebpouer obupuva Toi¢ elonuévore 
{id’ Rudy) Ta éxeibev Gxeoradyéva, Kat Gvtixpve évavtia Toic dddeKa Kepadaiore,. oi¢ 
expt Tot TapbvTo¢, w¢ dAdorpiouc Tig eboeBetac, ToAEuodVTEs duerehéoapen. *"Exeiva 
ev yap elxe, CapKikG¢ capka yeyovora Tov ék Ocod Adyov, Kk. 7-A. arnyopevoe 68 Kal 
- TOV Tepi TOD Kupiov dwvaev THY dtaipeow. Ta dé viv dreorahyéva 7] ebayyehung 
ebyeveia KadAbverar: Osd¢ yap Tédetog Kai GvOpwrog TéAEvog O Kipiog judy “I. Xp. 
dvadeixvetat év abtoic’ Kai dbcei¢ db0, kal TobTwy dtadopa, Kal Evwotg dovyxvTo¢c—Kai 
-TOv gbaewr Tac idLéTHTAC dxparac dvagvAdéaca’ Kai arabe wiv 6 Oed¢ Adyor, Kat 
Gtpextoc, maOnroc d& 6 vaéc. kK. T.,. Altera vero diffamata sunt quaedam, quae nos 
‘nimium turbayerunt. Dicunt enim, quod is, qui hic poenitudine usus sit, non, solum 
dejectionis s. damnationis subscriptionem a vestra Sanctitafe nitatur exigere, sed anathe- — 
matismum quoque doctrinae sanctissimi et Deo amicissimi episcopi Nestorii. Quodsi id 
verum est—simile aliquid facit, tanqaam si quis vix tandem perductus ad consubstantialem 
Deo et Patri Filium confitendum, mox iterum anathemate feriat eos, qui hoc a principio 
sapuerunt atque docuerunt, etc. Cyril himself says, Cyrillus ad Acacium, ap. Mansi, v. 
314, 315, that even the Nestorians considered that confession as consonant with their 


VOL. L238 


Nias oud Ok ee = —— ¥ a7 hs AA, ne, Le | or ce ee ey 


354 ; SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. 1—A.D. 324-451. 


unfortunate Nestor, who had never asserted aught inconsistent 
with that very confession of faith now signed by Cyril, was 
first banished to Oasis; then in Thebais was dragged from one 
’ place of banishment to another, till his death about 440.° To 
justify his condemnation, his contemporaries were obliged to 
misrepresent his doctrinal system,*’ and it was so handed down 
to posterity, till men of more enlarged and clearer views recog- 
nized the truth.” 
_. The Syrian bishops were now compelled to assent to the peace , 
concluded between John and Cyril. The greatest opposition was: 
made by the theological school in Edessa, which had long been 
the place of education for the Persian clergy, when Rabulas pro- 
hibited the writings of Diodorus and Theodore. Several of the 
teachers were interdicted, and betook themselves to Persia. One 
of them, Barswmas (Barsauma) became bishop of Nisibis (485— 
489) and confirmed the Persian Christians in their attachment 


faith. It is certain that Alexander, bishop of Hierapolis the most violent opponent of 
’ Cyril, was also against that confession, because it had adopted the expression @eoTéxo¢ 

(Ep. ad Theodoret. ap. Mansi, v. 878. Schulze, v. 750,: Quia hoe est quasi arx totius ejus 
. haereseos) ; but he doesnot reject it absolutely, but merely expresses his disapprobation 
of the doctrinal use of it under existing circumstances (Mansi, y. 875. Schulze, v. 746: 

post corruptionem totius orbis, et ex quo praedicari nunc coepit passibilis Deus ab impiis 
_Cyrilli capitulis, dogmatice poni solam vocem—theotocon, absque illa—anthropotocon, nihil 
est aliud, nisi ea quae Cyrilli sunt praedicari). Even the later Monophysites accused 
Cyril of apostatizing from’his doctrine. See Timothei Aeluri fragm. ap. Mansi, vii. 841, 
and Maji Coll. nov. vii. i. 1, 138, which fragment, if-not belonging to Timothy (as Walch 
Ketzerhist. vi. 682, shows), proceeded at least from a Monophysite. Hence when Vater 
' (kirchenbist. Archiv. 1825. ii. 211) and Baur (Dreieinigkeit, i. 786) deny the inconsistency 
of Cyril, they have, at least, the universal voice of that period against them. 

30 See Nestor’s own account, ap. Evagrius, i. 7. 

31 Ex. gr. Cassianus above, note 18. Leoin Epist. ad Leonem Aug. (Quesn. 135, Baller. 
165): Anathematizetur ergo Nestorius, qui beatam virginem Mariam non Dei, sed hominis 
tantummodo credidit genitricem, ut aliam personam carnis faceret, aliam deitatis: nec 
unum Christam in Verbo Dei et carne sentiret, sed separatim atque sejunctim alterum 
filium Dei, alterum hominis praedicaret. Still more misrepresented is the appendix to 
Augustin. de Haeresibus, c. 91: Nestoriani a Nestorio episcopo, qui contra catholicam 
fidem dogmatizaire ausus est, Dominum nostrum J. C. hominem tantum: nec id, quod 
mediator Dei et hominum effectum est, in utero virginis de Spiritu 8. faisse conceptum, 
sed postea Deum homini fuisse permixtum, etc. Such were the sources from which the 
middle ages drew their ideas of Nestorianism. 

32 First Luther (respecting councils in Walch’s Ausg. Th. xvi. S. 2718). After him 
many others (P. Bayle, 8. and J. Basnage; Christ. Kortholt, also Rich. Simon, L. Ell. du 
Pin, L. Maraccius, and others) reckoned it to be a mere dispute of words. So also P. E. 
Jablonski de Nestorianismo. Berol. 1724. 8, and Chr. A. Salig de Eutychianismo ante 
Eutychen. Guelpherb. 1723. 4. p. 284, 307... Controversial writings against Jablonski by 
P. Berger, J. Wessel, and especially C. G. Hoffmann, may be seen in Walchii Bibl. theol. 
iii. 773. Comp, J. Vogt de Recentissimis Nestorii defensoribus, in the Bibl. haeresiol. i. 
iii, 456, : 


CHAP. IL—THEOLOGY. Il. § 89. EUTYCHIAN CONTOVERSY. 355 


to the doctrinal system of Theodore, and their aversion to the 
council of Cyril at Ephesus. The successor of Rabulas in 
Edessa, Ibas, (bishop from 436 to 457) was indeed, though at 
peace with Cyril, a zealous friend of the views of the Antioch- 
enian theology, and even translated Theodore’s works into Syriac ; 
but persecution was afterward renewed against the adherents 
of these principles ; the school of Edessa was destroyed (489) ; 
and its few remaining friends fled into Persia. The Persian 
church had now broken off all connection with the church of the 
Roman empire, and the kings of Persia from Pherozes onward 
(461-488) favored this separation for political reasons. These 
Christians, who had the bishop of Selewcia and Ctesiphon as 
their Catholicus (Jacelich), were called by their opponents JVesto- 
rians, though they called themselves Chaldaean Christians, and 
in India Tomas-Christians. They have not only diffused them-' 
selves extensively in Asia, but have also acquired great merit by — 
conveying much of the learning of Greece into that part of the 
world, as well as by founding schools and hospitals. At a later 
period they became the instructors of the Arabians.** 


§ 89. 


EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY. 


ee 288 


Notwithstanding the external union becween Cyril and John, 
. the internal schism between Egypt (¥ hich Palestine followed) 
and the east, as to the person of Christ, still continued. The — 
Egyptians perceived Nestorianism? in the doctrine of two na-. 


~» 33 ‘The leading work is: Jos. Sim. Assemapss de Syris Nestorianis (Bibliothecae orient. — 
t. iii. P. ii. Rom. 1728. fol.) Ebedjesu (a Nestorian metropolitan of Soba or Nisibis t 1318) 
liber Margaritae de Veritate fidei (in Anés- Maji Scriptt. vett. nova coll. x. ii. 317) is a 


discussien and justification of the Nesto1an faith. ae as 
1 Concerning the three editions of chis Breviculus, see Ballerini de Antt. collection. 


cann. P. ii. ¢. 12 (in Gallandii Sylloge ed. Mogunt. t. i. p. 457), and Walch’s Ketzerhistorie, | 
Th. 6, S. 23, f. and 891, f.. =A eit 
~& Notwithstanding his subscription of the Antiochenian symbol, Cyril still held fast the 


$56. SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. 1.—A.D. 324-451. © 


tures; while the orientals, in the doctrine of one nature dis- 
devrheal Apollinarianism.’ ‘The former party, however, continued 
to be favored by the court; and of this favor Cyril’s successor, 
the violent Dioscurus (bishop from 444 till 451) availed himself 
extensively for the purpose of putting down the most zealous 
oriental bishops as Nestorians, and of forcing the Egyptian doc- 
trines on the east. 

On the other hand, a zealous adherent of Cyril, the old Ar- 
chimandrite (abbot) Ewtyches in Constantinople* was accused 
of holding these very doctrines, and condemned at a ctvodog év- 
dnpovoa by his bishop Flavian (448).° Leo, bishop of Rome, 


Athanasian formula: Miay gdc.v tod Oeod Aéyov ceoapkwpévyr. Cf. EBpistolae ii. ad 
Successum, Opp. v. ii. 137 and 143. Acacii Epist. ad Cyrillum in the Synodicon (Mansi, 
v. 860 and 998, and in Theodoreti Opp. ed. Schulze, v. 730 and 880): Cogatur unusquisque 
publice anathematizare Nestorii et Theodori dogmata, praecipue hos, qui dicunt dues 
naturas post unitionem, proprie unamquamque operantem. A copious declaration in 
Acacii’ Epist. ad Successum (in the Synod. Mansi, v. 999. Schulze, v. 881). Ex. gr.: 
Videmus, quod is qui ex Deo patre est sermo, inhumanatus est et incarnatus, et non sibi 
ex divina natura sanctum illud corpus plasmavit, sed magis ex virgine id accepit- 
Alioquin quomodo factus est homo, nisi quia corpus portavit humanum? Advertentes 
igitur, ut dixi, inhumanationis modum, videmus, quia duae naturae ad invieem convene- 
runt unitione indisrumpibili, inconfuse atque inconvertibiliter. Et ex duabus naturis 
factum fuisse dicentes, veruntamen post unitionem non dividimus naturas ab invicem, nec 
in duos incidemus Christum sed unum asserimus filium, et ut patres dixerunt, unam 
naturam verbi incarnatam. Ergo factus est homo, non hominem recepit, ut videtur 
Nestorio. Eranistes in Theodoreti Dial. ii. (ed. Schulze, iv. 83) says: Td d2 yé dvOpwrov 
arokanhely tie olkovpévncg Tov CWTHpa, ourxpbvery oti Tod deorbrov THY Ségav. P. 106 
and 114: ‘Odio Aéywr dice dbo Aéyer viotc. P. 114: ’Eyo tiv Oeéryra Aéyo wepern- 
Kéval, KATaTORAvaL dé dO TadTHE THY GvOpwTdTHTA, O¢ 7 Oddacoa pédtTOC TpocAaBoioa 
orayova. Spode yap ebbic 7 orayav éxeivn yiveral, TO THE OaAdrrye bOaTe wLyvupévy 
(the same figure inGregor. Nyss. Antirrhet. adv. Apollinar. § 42. Miinscher’s Dogmengesch. 
Bd. 4. 8. 37). Som went still farther. See Isidor. Pelus. lib. i. Epist. 496, ad Con- 
stantinum: Ove Bors G7 26¢ cov Kar’ émiyrwoty. Tove TO Oeiov eboeBoc mpecBevovTac 
OvOKELe Eupavic, obyAVO%y Twa Kal dvaxpacuy kal Tponiyy THY el¢ capKa Tov Oeod Aoyov 
KaTnyOv, } GAAoLOY THY Yeiav gborv ele capKa Kal doTéa, } THY GAjOeLav THe CapKde 
Oerov. Cf. Epist. 419. 

3 About this time Theodoret wrote against the Hgyptians his Apologia pro Diodoro et 
Theodoro Mopsuest., now lost, at Eranistes (ed. Schulze, t. iv. p. 1, ss.). 

* Deposition of Irenaeus, bishop Tyre (Theodosii ii. lex. ap. Mansi, v. 417, and Theo- 
doreti Epist. 110), persecution of Iba (Liberati Breviar. c. 10), and of Theodoret (Theo- 
doreti Epist. 79, ss.). Theodoreti Epix, 101: Iévray duod THY THE dvarohijc OcodtAec- 
Tétwv éxioxérav KaTéxyeav THY Aoopiay ol tov wetdove épyatal, Kai Tag éExkAnoiac 
Cadne évérdqoay. Epist. 95 ad Antioch. Praefectum: ’Exauvvdtw Toivev airtoic (Tvi¢ 
émioxdrotc) Td buétepov wéyeOoc, Kal THE guxogavTovmévng éGac Kndduevov, Kal THE 
amooromKhe mpounOotuevoy ristewe. 

5 He appears as an assistant of Cyril against Nestorius in Epiphanii Epist. ad Maxi- 
mianum above, § 88, note 28. 

6 The acts of this synod are in the acts of the council of Chalcedon, actio i. ap. Mansi, 
vi. 649, ss. Eutyches complains, p. 700, that he has béen accused of saying, dru ye d9 && 
obpavod tiv cdpxa 6 Bede Abyor KaTevAvoxer, Ge abTo¢ dvebOvvoc Tvyxavet The TOLAadTHE 








\ 
CHAP. IL—THBOLOGY. Ill. §.89. EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY. 357 


not only approved of this proceeding, but in his Epistola ad Fla- 
vianum” gave also a doctrinal development of the disputed point, 


Aovdopiac. To the question, p. 741': ‘Ouohoyeic duootciov TG watpl Kata tiv GedtyTa, 
kal duoovotov TH unTpi Kata THY dvOpwrdryta Tov aiTtov Eva vidv TOV KipLov TudY 
Incovy Xpiorév. He answers: "Exedy duodoy@ Oedv pov, kai xiptov obpavod Kal yFe, 
fag ofuepov gvotodoyeiv éuavtd odk éritpému. duoova.ov d& juiv &we viv obk eirov 
mp0 TobTov, duodoyG. &w¢ ohuepov odk elzov TO CHa Tod Kupiov Kai Beod judy dpuo0d- 
clov quiv, tHv O& dyéav rwapbévov duodoye eivat juiv duootactov, Kai 6te && aiti¢g éoap- 
«00m 6 Oed¢ Hudv. When the remark was made upon this: Tic untpo¢ duoototov jyuiv 
ovons, Tavtw¢ Kal 6 vide duoobotog juiv éotiy, he rejoined: “Ewe ojuepov ovk eizov: 
_ érewdn yap cGua Geod atté buodoye (mpocécyec), odk elzov ciua dvOpdrov 76 Tod Beot 
céua, dvOpdérivov 62 TO cua, Kai 6tt éx THE mapévov écapKdOn 6 Kiptoc. ei U2 det 
sively éx tig mapbévov, Kal duootcov quiv, Kai rovTo Aéyw, Kipte. To the question, 
p- 744: ‘Opootoror, cai éx dio dicewr weta tiv EvavOpernaww Tov Kiptov jucy Tov éK 


tHe mapbévov Aéyetc 7 ob, he gave the reply in explanation: ‘OuodoyG éx dio dicewy — 


yeyevvicbat tov Kbplov nudvy mpd tic Evdcewe’ peta d2 THY évacty, piav ddolv duoheyS 
When -he refused to acknowledge the two natures, and to anathematize the contrary 
opinion, the decision was passed, p. 748: Ard mévtwyv reddparar Etrvyng 6 wéAat 
mpeaBitepocg Kai apxmavdpiznc—rtyv Obahertivov kai ’Arodvapiov Kaxodogidy voobv. 
6Gev émidaxptoavrec, Kai orevdsavrec éxi TH TavTedel Urwheig abrod, Opioauer did Tod 
Kupiov Huov’Incod Xprarov Tod br’ abrod BAaconunGévtoc, GAA6TpLOv abtovy eivat Tav- 


TO¢ leparixov Tayyatoc, Kal Tig Tpb¢ Hud KoLvwriac, Kai TOD TpOEOTGvatL povacTnpiov. 


Comp. Epist. Eutychetis ad Leonem. Papam (in the Synodicon ap. Mansi, v. 1015. 
_ Schulze, v. 897): Expetebar duas naturas fatevi, et anathematizare eos, qui hoc negarent. 
Ego autem metuens definitionem a synodo, nec edimere nec addere verbum contra ex- 
positam fidem a sancta synodo Nicaena (cf. § 88, note 27), sciens vero sanctos et beatos 
patres nostros. Julium, Felicem, Athanasium, Gregorium sanctissimos episcopos refutantes 
duarum naturarum vocabulum, etc.. In the confession of faith annexed (ibid. c. 223): Ipse 
enim, qui est verbum Dei, descendit de coelo sine carne, et factus est caro in utero sanctae 
virgini ex ipsa carne Yirginis incommutabiliter et inconvertibiliter, sicut ipse novit et 
voluit. Et factus est, qui est semper Deus perfectus ante saecula, idem et homo per- 
fectus in extremo dierum propter nos et nostram salutem. None but opponents have 
charged Eutychianism with the doctrine of an apparent body, or the transformation of the 


Logos into flesh. So Theodoret. Haer. fab. comp. iv.13. Gelasius de duabus naturis in - 


Christo. adv; Eutychem et Nestorium. LEutyches is defended by the Jesuit Gabriel 
Vasquez (Commentarii in'Thomam. - Ingolst. 1606. fol. in part. iii. Thomae Disp. xiv. 
¢e. 1), Archibald Bower (History of the Popes, vol. ii. p. 31, 61, ss.) and others. 

7 Ed. Quesnell. Ep. 24, ed. Baller. Ep. 28,.c. 2, ap. Mansi, v. 1359: Fecunditatem vir- 
gini Spiritus §. dedit, veritas autem corporis sumta de corpore est; et aedificante sibi 
sapientia.domum (Prov. ix. 1) Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis: hoc est, in 
ea carne, quam assumsit ex homine, et quam spiritu vitae rationalis animavit. C. 3: Salva 
igitur propriectate utriusque naturae et substantiae, et in unam coeunte personam, suscepta 
est a majestate humilitas, a virtute infirmitas,,.ab aeternitate mortalitas: et ad resolvendum 


conditionis nostrae debitum natura inviolabilis natura est unita passibili: ut, quod nostris ~ 


remediis congruebat, unus atque idém mediator Dei et hominum, homo Jesus Christus, 
et mori posset ex uno, et mori non posset ex altero. In integra ergo veri hominis per- 


fectaque natura verus natus est Deus, totus in suis, totus in nostris. Assumsit formam 
servi sine sorde peccati, humana augens, divina non minuens. Tenet enim sine defectu - 
proprietatem suam utraque natura: et sicut formam servi Dei forma non adimit, ita 


formam Dei servi forma non minuit. -C. 4: Nova autem nativitate generatus: quia in- 
violata virginitas, quae coneupiscentiam nescivit, carnis materiam ministravit. Assumta 
est de matre Domini natura, non culpa: nec in Domino Jesu Christo, ex utero virginis 
genito, quia nativitas est mirabilis, ideo nostri est natura dissimilis, Qui enim verus est 
Deus, idem verns est.homo: et nullum est in hac unitate mendacium, dum invicem sunt 





358: SECOND PERIOD:—DIV. IL—A.D. 324-451. * 


which was by no means favorable to the Egyptians. It is trae 
that Dioscurus now procured the summoning of a general synod 
at Ephesus (449) and there, as president, compelled by violent 
“measures the bishops to pronounce in favor of Eutyches and the 
Egyptian doctrines (obvodog Agotpsnn, Theophanis Chronograph. 

p. 86.—Latrocinium Ephesinum, Leo ad Pulcheriam Ep. 75, 

ed. Quesnel) ;* but the death of ‘Theodosius II. (+ 450) Be 
at once the state of affairs. The new rulers Pulcheria and 
Marcian, who was elevated to the throne by marrying her, were 
as partial to Leo as they were hostile to Dioscurus.? Hence, a © 
new general council was called at Chalcedon (451), at which 
Dioscurus was deposed for many misdeeds, the perseeuted east- 
ern bishops, and with them Cyril, too,’® for the purpose of 
sparing the Egyptians, were declared orthodox, Leo’s Epist. ad. 
Flavianum, made the rule of faith on the point in dispute, and 
at the same time a more minute explanation of it given on the 
part of the council.’ But though the decrees of the synod re- 


et humilitas hominis et altitudo Deitatis. Sicut enim Deus non mutatur miseratione, ita 
lomo non consumitur dignitate. Agit enim utraque forma cum alterius communione quod 
proprium est: Verbo scilicet operante;. quod Verbi est, et carne exequente quod carnis 
est. Unum horum coruscat miraculis, aliud succumbit injuriis. Et sicut Verbum ab 
aequalitate paternae gloriae non recedit, ita caro naturam nostri generis non relinquit: 
Unus enim idemque est, quod saepe dicendum est, vere Dei filius et vere hominis filius. 
Quem itaque sicut hominem diabolica tentat astutia, eidem sicut Deo angelica famulantur 
officia. Esurire, sitire, lassescere, atque dormire evidenter humanum est. Sed v. panibus 
y. millia hominum satiare, et largiri Samaritanae aquam vivam, cujus haustus bibenti 
praestet, ne ultra jam sitiat; supra dorsum maris plantis non desidentibus ambulare, et 
elationes fluctuum inecrepata tempestate consternere: sine ambiguitate divinum est. Sicut 
ergo, ut multa praeteream, non ejusdem naturae est, flere miserationis affectu amicum 
mortuum, et eundem.remoto quatriduanae aggere sepulturae, ad vocis imperium excitarée 
redivivam: ita non ejusdem naturae est, dicere: Ego et pater unum sumus (Jo..x. 30) et 
dicere: Pater major me est (Jo. xiv. 28). Leo here proceeded a little further on the same 
path as Ambrose and Angustine. See above, § 88, notes 8 and 9. J.J. Griesbach Diss. 

locos communes theologicos, collectos ex Leone M. sistens. Halae. 1768. Sect. iii. (in 
ejusd. Opuse. acad. ed. Gabler, i. 45). Epistolam, etc. ed. H. Ph. C. Henke. Helmst. 

(The prologue is also in Henke Opusc. acad. Lips. 1802. p. 59, ss.) Henke properly 
ealls attention to the circumstance that there is no mention whatever of Nestor in the 
letter.. Baur’s Dreieinigkeit, i. 809. 

§ Lewald die sogen. Raubersynode, in Illgen’s Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol. viii. 139. 

% The Alexandrian Sophronius even accused Dioscurus in Chalcedon of having opposed: 
the acknowledgment of Marcian in Egypt (Mansi, vi. 1033), gavrév yap wdAAov Baciredect: 
Hehe tie Alyurtiaxig dtorxfoewe. No notice, however, was taken of this accusation by 
the synod, nor is there a trace of it to be found elsewhere. 

10 How little convinced the prevailing party was of Cyril’s orthodoxy is clear from 
the fact that Gennadius, patriarch of Constantinople, after 458, wrote against his twelve 
anathemas. See Facundus pro defens. iii. capitalorum, i ii. 4. Salig de Eutychianismo 
me Butychen, p. 316. 

11 Concerning the remarkable circumstances, and the opposition of the Roman. legates, 


CHAP. IIl—THEOLOGY. Ti. §90. OECUMENICAL SYNODS. 359 


ceived imperial confirmation and support by punitory laws, they 
were looked upon as Nestorian by many in Egypt and Palestine, 
and. this proved, soon after, the beginning of the tedious Mono- 
physite controversy. 


§ 90. 
OF THE THEOLOGICAL AUTHORITY OF THE OECUMENICAL SYNODS. 


In this period the utterances of the oecumenical councils,’ as 
the last and highest ecclesiastical decisions, began to assume an 
important place among the sources of theological knowledge. 
As all synods prior to the present time were supposed to be un- 
der the peculiar direction of the Holy Spirit, without on that ac- 
count claiming infallibility,” so also the doctrinal decisions of 
general eousicils were derived from a special co-operation of the 
Holy Spirit,’ but so far were men as yet from attributing to them 


see the protocol actio v. ap. Mansi, vii. 97, ss—P. 108: "Opo¢ tic év XaAxnddve terdptne 
Levédov. P. 116: ‘Emduevor toivuv roi¢ dyiowe matpaotv, Eva kal tov abrov buodoyeiv 
vidyv Tov Kiptoy quay "Inootv Xpiotov ovuddvug dravtec éxdiddoxomev, TéAELov Tov 
abrov év Oedrate kai TéAerov Tov adrov év dvOpurdtytl, Oedv GAnbdc Kai dvOpwrov 
GAnObc Tov abrir &k Wuyi Aoytkij¢ Kai cHuaToc, buoobciov TH TaTpi Kata THY OebTyTA, 
kal duootctov Tov abrov jyiv Kara tHY dvOpwrbryTa, Kata TaVvTA Gpuolov Huty yopic¢ 
dyapriac’ mpd aldvev piv éx Tod TaTpd¢g yevvnOévta Kata THY OeétyTA, ew’ oxaTuv dé 
TOV HuepOv Tov abrov, du’ Rude Kai dia Tv juetépav owrnpiarv, éx Mapiac rie mapbévov 
the Georékov Kata THv dvOpurdryTa, Eva Kai Tov abtiv Xprotor, vidv, KbpLov, povoyery, 
éx Ovo dicey (leg. év dto diceal) dovyxiTuc, dtpéxTuc, ddialpétac, Gxwpiotw¢ yvwpllo- 
Levov' obdauod Tie TOV dbcEewv dLagopac avypnuévng did THY Evwoty, owlouévyne J? 
baAdov tie ldLérnTo¢ Exarépag dice Kai cic Ev Tpdowror, Kai piav br6oTacLY CvYTpEX- 
obonc, oik ei¢ dbo TpdouTa pepiComevor, 7 Oratpovpevor, GAN Eva Kai Tov adbrov vidv Kai 
povoyevy, Gedv Adyov, kiptov *lycoty Xpiotév" Kabdrep dvwbev ol xpodjtat rept adrod, 
kat abric hude 6 Kipiog "Inooi¢g Xpioto¢ éeraidevoe, kai 76 Thy TaTépwv Huiv mapadéduxe 
ovuBodaov. That the true reading must be év dGo gvceor (as all the Latins have in duabus 
naturis) is shown by Mansi, vii. 775. Walch. Bibl. symb. vetus, p. 106, to which we have 
also to add the testimonies of the Monophysite Severus Patr. Ant. (ap. Mansi, vii. 840), 
Evagrius, H. E. ii.c. 4. Leontius Bys. de Sectis. Actio, v.c. 7. Agathonis P. Ep. ad 
Constantem IT. (in the Act. Conc. oecum. vi. Act. 4, ap. sre xi. 256). Baur’s Dreieinig- 
keit, i. 820, defends the reading éx. 0. ¢. Soi 

1 The name civodoc olxovueviky first in Conc. Constant. ann. 381, can. 6. 

2 According to Acts xv. 28. Conc. Carthag. ann. 252 (in Opp. Cypriani): Placuit nobis 
sancto Spiritu suggerente et Domino per visiones multas et manifestas admonente. To 
what an extent this form of speech proceeded may be seen in Concil. Ephes. ann. 431, 
above, § 88, note 27. But in a similar formula spake also a partial council at Constantino- 
ple, which condemned Eutyches. See above, § 89, note 6. 

3 Constantini Epist. ad Eccl. Alexandr. (Socrates, i. 9): In reference to the Nicene 
council: “O yap toi¢ TpLakoatorc Hpecev "Extoxorote, obdév eat érepov, } Tod Bed 
yvaun, Ldhota ye brov Td dytov mvedua, ToLovTav Kai THALKODTY Gvdpdy Taig diavolat¢ 


860 3 -' SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. 1.—A.D. 324451. 


an exclusive infallibility dependent only upon their conformity to 
certain external conditions,* that they were put in the same rank 
with other orthodox synods,° and in answering opponents, men 
did not endeavor to prove that the council was oecumenical, but 
that its decision was true according to Scripture and tradition.® 


éykeiuevov, tv Ociav BobAnotv éegaticev. Basilii Ep. 114 (al. 204): Of rptaxéoror déxa 
Kai OxT@—ovK avev THE Tod Gylov mvEetipaTog evepysiacg EGUEyEaYTO (THY xicTLY). Socrat. 
i. 9, against the Macedonian historian Sabinus, who had pronounced the Nicene fathers 
ignorant men: Ov« évOvyciras, we, ei xai idiGtat Qoavol Tie Xvvddov, kateddurovTo 
62 ixd Tod Bod, Kai THe xaptTo¢ TOD Gyiov TvEvpaTor, obdayGe doToyjout Tic GAnOetac 
édtvavro. Thus Isidore Pelus. lib. iv. Ep. 99, calls the Nicene council @edfev éurvev- 
obsica. . 

+ Epist. Synodi Nicaene ad Alexandrinos (Theodoret. i. 8) in fine: Etyeofe 62 xal ixép 
nua andvtwr, iva Ta Kade Eye ddfavta BéBata pévor Oa Tod Kupiov hucy "Incod 
Xpiorod, car’ evdoxiay yeyernuéva, O¢ ye wemioTtedKapev, TOD Oeod Kai ratpo¢ év Tved- 
pati Gyiw. In Socrates, i.c. 9 this passage has been altered. Augustinus de Baptismo 
contra Donatistas, ii. 3: Quis autem nesciat, sanctam scripturam canonicam—omnibus 
postetrioribus Episcoporum literis ita praeponi, ut de illa omnino dubitari et disceptari non 
possit, utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit, quidquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit: Epis- 
coporum autem literas—per sermonem forte sapientiorem—et per alioram Episcoporam 
graviorem auctoritatem—et per concilia licere reprehendi, si quid in eis forte a veritate 
deviatum est: et ipsa concilia, quae per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt, plenarioram 
conciliorum auctoritati, quae fiunt ex universo orbe christiano, sine ullis ambagibus cedere : 
ipsaque plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari, quum aliquo experimento rerum 
aperitur quod clausum erat, et cognoscitur quod latebat, sine ullo typho sacrilegae super- 
biae, sine ulla inflata cervice arrogantiae, sine ulla contentione lividae invidiae, cum saucta 
humilitate, cum pace catholica, cum caritate christiana. 

5 Constantinus Epist. ad Episcopos, qui Conc. Nicaeno non interfuerunt (Euseb. de vita 
Const. iii. 20, and Socrates, i. 9) says generally: Il@v ydp, et tt & Gv év troig dyiowg tev 
éxtoxérav ovvedpiowg mpatrytat, Todto mpoc THv Oeiay BobAnoww exe tHv dvagopdr. 
Thus Athanasius places the Concil. Antiochen. a.D. 269, to which his opponents appealed in | 
defense of their rejection of the term ézoovc1ov, on an equality with the Nicene in point 
of theological authority. De Synodis, c. 43: Svyxpobev wiv yap tobrove xpoc éxeivoue 
ampenéc’ mavteg yap eioe marépec* dcaxpivery 62 méALvy, Ge odTOL wey KaAGE, éxetvot 2 
tobvartiov eipykaciv, obxy botov’ of xavtec yap éxousgOgcayv év Xpiord. Ob ypy 62 
gtAoverkeiv, obd2 TOV CvvEedOévTuv Tov GpLOudy cvpBdAAeELY, iva pH SoKGow of TpLaxéctot 
Tove éidtrovag émixpbrtewv* ob8 Gv xdduv tov xpdvov avauetpeiv, iva py doKdorvr of 
mporaBovrec agavifery Tove peta Tadta yevouévove’ of xdvtec yap Kaa nposipnrat 
rarépec evict. °- 

6 Augustinus contra Maximinum Arian. ii. 14, 3: Sed nunc nec ego Nicaenum, nec 
tu debes Ariminense tamquam praejudicaturus proferre concilium. Nec ego bujus auc- 
toritate, nec tu illius detineris: Scripturarum auctoritatibus, non quorumque propriis, 
sed utrisque communibus testibus, res cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione con 
certet. . 


CHAP. IJ.—HIBRARCHY. § 91. IMPORTANCE OF THE CLERGY. 361 ~ 


THIRD CHAPTER. 


HISTORY OF THE HIERARCHY. 


Planck’s Geschichte der christl. kirchl. Gesellschaftsverfassung, i. 276. C. Riffel’s gesch. 
Darstellung des Verhaltnisses zwischen Kirche u. Staat. Mainz. 1836. &. i. 114. 


§ 91. 
GROWING IMPORTANCE OF THE CLERGY. 


The Christian emperors enlarged the privileges already grant- 
ed by Constantine to the church and the clergy (Div. I. § 56, 
note 30, ff), by new tokens of their favor. They released 
church lands and the clergy from certain civil liabilities,’ but 
by no means from adi taxes ;? gave a legal confirmation to the 
decisions which the bishops pronounced in ecclesiastical affairs,° 
and which they also gave 4s chosen umpires in. civil disputes, 


2 Besides the municipal offices (see Div. I: § 56, note 30), both the clergy and church 
’ property were freed from the muneribus sordidis and extraordinariis (cf. Cod. Theod. lib. 
xi. tit. 15, de extraordinariis sive sordidis muneribus and Gothofredi paratitlon), from the 
metatis (Cod. Th. 1. vii. t. 8, de metatis), the angariis and parangariis (Cod. Th. 1. vii. t. 5, 
de cursu publico, angariis et parangariis), and finally the immunity of the clerici nego- 
tiantes from the lustralis conlatio (Cod. Th. 1. xiii. t. 1, de lustrali conlatione comp. Hege- 
wisch Hist. Versuch tiber die rém. Finanzen, 8. 307, ff). Comp. besides the works cited 
Cod. Theod. 1. xvi. ii. 8,-19, etc.. Comp. Binghami Origg. eccl. vol. ii. p. 227. Planck, i. 289. 

2 Constantine had indeed at first, in the year 315, also released the church lands from 
the tributis ordinariis (Cod. Theod. xi. i. 1), but they were soon after again subjected to 
this tribute, and when the council of Ariminum (A.D. 359) applied to Constantius, ut juga, 
‘quae videntur ad Ecclesiam pertinere, a publica functione cessarent, inquietudine de- 
sistente, he flatly denied the request, Cod. Theod. xvi. ii. 15. Gratian even subjected the 
church lands to the extraordinariis collationibus (Cod. Theod. xi. xvi. 15). So also Theo- 
dosius, |. c. 1. 18. Honorius released them from the extraordinaria, 1. c. 1. 21, 22. Theo- 
dosius If. subjected them again to the angariis and parangariis. Cod. Justin. i. ii. 11. 
- Comp. Ambrosii Orat. de basilicis non tradendis haereticis: Si tributum petit Imperator, | 
non negamus. Agri ecclesiae solvunt tributum. Si agros desiderat Imperator, potestatem 
habet-vindicandorum, nemo nostrum intervenit, etc. Riffel, i. 153. 

3 Euseb. de vita Const. iv. c. 27. See below, note 4. Comp. the law of Honorius a.p 
399 (Cod. Theod. xvi. xi. 1): Quotiens de religione agitur, Episcopos convenit judicare, 
caeteras vero causas, quae ad ordinarios cognitores, vel ad usum publici juris pertinent, 
legibus oportet audiri. : 

* Respecting these episcopal arbitration-decisions comp. Div. I. § 69, note 6. It had 
been always reckoned unchristian to depart from them, and thus public opinion demanded 
for them the preference, so that they laid the foundation of an actio rei judicatae. This 
privilege has been usually ascribed to Constantine, with reference to Eusebius de vita 
Const. iv. 27: Tode rap éxionémwv Spove rove év ovvddorg drogavbévrac éreodpaytfero 


362 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A-D. 324-451. ~ 


allowed the clergy to be bound by these judicial decisions, * and 
even put them in cases of discipline under spiritual courts,° 
without however conceding to the bishops a civil jurisdiction.’ 


oc Ba “éSeivar Toig TOv EOvdv & dpxovet, ta d6favta mapadvew’ wxavto¢ yap civat dixacted 
Tove lepei¢ tot Geod doxiywwrépove : in which civodo¢ according to Conc. Carthag. iv. c. 23 
(see Div. L § 69, note 11) is understood of the presbytery. These arbitrations, however: 
were not pronounced by the collegia, but by the bishop, and by him sometimes committed 
to individual presbyters and deacons; by Sylvanus bishop of Troas, even wholly to an 
honest layman (Socrates, vii. 37); see Bingham. vol. i. p. 130; and thus that passage 
appears to refer to the decisions and’sentences of the provincial synods. Sozomen i. c. 9 ~ 
is indeed more distinct: Toy dé ’Exickémwv émixadsiobat tiv Kpiow éxétpebe (Kov- 
oravtivoc) toi¢g dixalouévoic, iv BobAwvtar Tove ToAtTiKOve GpyovTag mapacteioGar" 
_kupiav 68 elvar tiv abtév Yijgov, Kai KpeitTw THE TOV GAAwY diKacTOv, Goavel Tapa 
tov Baottéwc éSevexGeioav’ sic Epyov dé Ta Kptvoueva Gyetv Tove Gpyovrac, Kal Tove 
dtakovovpévove abroig orpati@rac’ auetratpémtove Te eivar TOV Lvvddwy Tove Spove. 
Still this seems to be only an amplified interpretation of that passage in Eusebius. The 
oldest law extant on the subject is a.p. 408 (Cod. Justin. i. iv. 8). Honor. et Theod. AA. 
Theodoro P. P. Episcopale judicium ratum sit omnibus, qui se audiri a Sacerdotibus 
elegerint: eamque illorum judicationi adhibendam esse reverentiam jubemus, quam 
vestris deferri necesse est potestatibus, a quibus non licet provocare. Per judicum quoque 
Officia, ne sit cassa episcopalis cognitio, definitioni executio tribuatar. Cf. Augustin. in 
Psalm xxv. § 13 (about 415): Principes saeculi tantum detulerunt Ecclesiae, ut quidquid 
in ea judicatum fuerit, dissolvi non possit. But as a like privilege was granted to the 
Jewish patriarchs as early as 398 (Cod. Theod. ii. i. 10), we may fairly assume that the 
Christian bishops also were earlier possessed of it. H.M. Hebenstreit Hist. jurisdictionis 
ecclesiasticae ex legibus utriusque codicis illustrata, diss. iii. Lips. 1773, ss. 4. B. Schil- 
ling de Origine jurisdictionis ecclesiasticae in causis civilibus. Lips. 1825.4. C. F.A. 
Jungk de Originibus et progressu episcopalis judicii in causis civilibus erate usque ad 
Justinianum. Berol. 1832. 8. 

5 Conc. Carthag. iii. ann. 397, c. 9: Item placuit, ut quisquis Episcoporum, Presbyter- 
orum, et Diaconorum, seu Ciericorum, cum in Ecclesia ei crimen fuerit intentatum, vel 
civilis causa fuerit commota, si relicto ecclesiastico judicio, publicis judiciis purgari 
voluerit, etiamsi pro ipso fuerit prolata sententia, locam suum amittat, et hoc in criminali — 
judicio. In civili vero perdat quod evicit, si locum suum obtinere voluerit. Cui enim ad 
eligendos judices undique patet auctoritas, ipse se indignum fraterno consortio judicat, 
qui de universa Ecclesia male sentiendo de judicio seculari poscit auxilium, cum privat- 
orum Christianorum causas Apostolus ad Ecclesiam deferri, atque ibi terminari praecipiat. 
Conc. Chalced. c. 9: Ei tig KkAnpixdcg mpdoc KAnpiKkov xpdyya Eyer, uy Katadwysmavétw Tov 
oixetov ’Exicxorov, kai éxi Koopixd dtxaorypia Katatpexétw.—el d& Tic Tape Taira 
TO:HoEl, Kavovikoic broKsicbw éritipiorc. 

6 Lex Constantii (Cod. Theod. xvi. xi. 12), 4.D.355: Mansuetudinis nostrae lege prohibe- 
mus, in judiciis Episcopos accusari—Si quid est igitur querelarum, quod quispiam defert, 
apud alios potissimum Episcopos convenit explorari. Gratiani (ibid. 1. 23,) aD. 376: 
Qui mos est causarum civilium, idem in negotiis ecclesiasticis obtinendus est: ut si qua 
sunt ex quibusdam. dissensionibus, levibusque delictis, ad religionis observantiam perti- 
nentia, locis suis, et a suae Dioeceseos Synodis audiantur: exceptis quae actio criminalis 
ab ordinariis extraordinariisque judicibus, aut illustribus potestatibus audienda constituit. 
Honorii (ibid. 1. 41,) 4.D. 412: Clericos non nisi apud Episcopos accusari convenit. Valenti- 
niani iii. (ibid. 1. 47, A.D. 425): Clericos—episcopali audientiae reservamus : fas enim non 
est, ut divini muneris ministri temporalium potestatum subdantur arbitrio. 

7 The limits of episcopalis audientia are definitely given by Valentiniani iii. novella de 
episcopali judicio a.p. 442, (ed. Gothofred. nov. Val. tit. xii. ed. Haenell nov. xxxiv.): De 
episcopali judicio diversoram saepe causatio est. Ne ulterius querela procedat, necesse 
est praesenti lege sanciri. Itaque cum inter clericos jurgium vertitur, et ipsis litigatoribus 


CHAP. III.—HIERARCHY. § 91. IMPORTANCE OF THE CLERGY. 365 


But the old ecclesiastical rights of the clergy, particularly the 


right of superintending morals, and the duty of interference 


on behalf of all the unfortunate, received quite another import- 
ance after they had been recognized by the state, by the eleva- 
tion of Christianity into the state religion. The persons of mag- 
istrates also now became subject to them as inspectors of the 
public morals; yea, even the emperors themselves, as far as 
they were Christians ;* and the duty of interference on behalf 


conyenit, habeat, Episcopus licentiam judicandi, praeeunte tamen vinculo compromissi. 
Quod e¢ laicis, si consentiant, auctoritas nostra permittit. Aliter eos judices esse non 
patimur, nisi voluntas jurgantium interposita, sicut dictum est, conditione praecedat: quo: 
niam constat, Episcopos et Presbyteros foram legibus non habere, nec de aliis causis, se- 
ceundum Arcadii et Honorii divalia constituta, quae Theodosianum corpus ostendit, praeter 
religionem, pesse cognoscere. Sin vero petitor laicus, seu in civili seu criminali causa, 
cujuslibet loci Clericum adversarium suum, si id magis eligat, per auctoritatem legitimam 
in publico judicio respondere compellat. Quam formam etiam circa Episcoporum perso- 
nam observari oportere censemus. Ut si in hujuscemodi ordinis homines actionem perva- 
sionis et atrocium injuriaram dirigi necesse fuerit, per procuratorem solemniter ordinatum 
apud judicem publicum inter leges et jura confligant, judicati exitu ad mandatores sine 
dubio reversuro. Quod iis reltgionis et sacerdotii veneratione permittimus. Nam notum 
est, procurationem in criminalibus negotiis non posse concedi. Sed ut sit ulla discretio 
meritorum, Episcopis et Presbyteris tantam id oportet impendi. In reliquis negotiis crimi- 
-nalibus juxta legum ordinem per se judicium subire coguntur. 

8 Conc. Arelatense, ann. 314, c. 7: De praesidibus, qui fideles ad praesidatum prosiliunt, 
placuit ut, cum promoti fuerint, literas accipiant ecclesiasticas communicatorias (Comp. Div. 
ET. § 41, note 5): Ita tamen ut in quibuscunque locis gesserint, ab Episcopo ejusdem loci cura 
de illis agatur, et cum coeperint contra diciplinam agere, tam demum a communione ex- 
eludantur. Similiter et de his qui rempublicam agere volunt. Gregor. Naz. Orat. xvii. p- 
271, thus addresses the duvéora: kal dpyovtec: 6 Tod Xpiorod vopoc brotidgow bude TH 
fy dvvacteia kai TO eo Bhatt dpxopev yap Kai abtoi, mpoabijow © 6Tt Kai THY pe ilove 
kal tehewrépav dpynv. i) dei TO rvedipa broxwphoat TH capKl, Kai Toic ynivowg Ta éov- 
pévia ; Thus Athanasios excommunicated a governor of Libya on account of cruelty and 
excesses; and Basil the Great assures him (Ep. 61,) after he had made known this excom- 
munication in his church, dotpévavov abrov mavtec hyjeovtal, uy Tupd¢, wy DdaToc, ur} 
oxérne abt KoLvavodvTec. Comp. the excommunication which Synesius bishop of Ptole- 
mais, uttered against the prefect Andronicus, Synesii Hpist. 58: ’Avdpovixw kal Toi¢ abrod 
pndéev avoryviobe réuevoc Tot Oe0d: rac abtoic lepoc drokeKAciobu nai onkdc¢ Kai TepiBo- 
Aoc* otk EoTt TH AtaBodAw, pépoc év Mapadeiow b¢ Kav AGOy dtadde, éeAatverar. Tapawd 
pév obv Kai ldOrn Tavti Kai Gpyovti, uATe duop6dtov adta, upte duotparelov yivecBbar: 
lepedor 08 StadepdvTuac, ot ujte COvtag abtodc mpocEpoiat, ute TehevTHoavTac ovuTpo- 
méupovowy, k. T. 2. Cf. Clausen de Synesio. Hafn. 1831. 8, p. 152, ss. The bishops of 
Alexandria, in particular, made themselves objects of fear to. the officials of that place. 
Cyril obtained this see by fighting, although the leader of the army there was against him. 
Socrates vii..7: Kai yap & éxeivov "Extoxoni ‘AdeSavdpetac Tapa THe lepariKiic 
TaEEWC karddvvactetery Tév mpayudrav éAaBe tyv dpynv. Comp. Socrates, vii. c. 13, on 
the disputes between Cyril and Orestes, prefect of Egypt: ’Opéarne dé kal mpérepov péy 
éuioe thy duvacteiay tév ériokbrwr, bre Tapnpodvto ToAd ripg EZovoiag TGv ék BactAbw¢ 
dpxew teraypévov* wddcora d2 bre Kat éxonreterv abtod rac dtatvmdcsic’ Képrddoc 
2BobAeT0.—Theodosius I. was compelled to do penance by Ambrose (Rufinus, xi. 18 ; 
Sozom. vii. 25; Theodoret. v. 17. Comp. Neander’s K. G. ii. i. 384). Of Theodosius IT_ 
Theodoret, y. 36, relates that a monk came to him, epi tivoc deduevoc, érerdy d2 Todt 
dpacac ToAAGKC ob« Ervye, The ExxAgovactiKAs abtov Korvwviac ExGdvae, Kal Tov dequdy 














‘ 


364 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D. 324-451, 


of the unfortunate established a right of intercession with the 
civil power,’ which often exhibited itself in a very stormy way 
in cases where the punishment of death, which the Christians 
of that time regarded with horror, was decreed.*® | In like man- 
ner the acknowledgment of this right of the clergy facilitated 
the transfer of the right of asylum from heathen temples to the 
Christian churches."' All these rights had long since grown 


émiOeic breyépnoe. Nor had the emperor any rest till this fanatic had again freed him 
from the sentence. 
9 (As the yestals had formerly exercised it, see Cicero pro Fontejo in fine. Sueton. Jul. 


_ Caesar, c. i, Tiber. c. 2). . Conc. Sardic. c. 8, below, § 92, note 11. Ambrosius de Offic. 


ministr. ii. c. 21: Adjuvat hoc quoque-ad profectum bonae existimationis, si de potentis man- 
ibus eripias inopem, de morte damnatum eruas, quantum sine perturbatione fieri potest, 
ne videamur jactantiae magis causa facere, quam misericordiae, et graviora inferre vulnera, 
dum levioribus mederi desideramus. Cap. 29: Egregie hinc vestrum enitescit ministerium, 
sisuscepta impressio potentis, quam vel vidua vel orphani tolerare non queant, Ecclesiae 
subsidio cohibeatur, si ostendatis plus apud vos mandatum Domini, quam divitis valere 
gratiam. Meministis ipsi, quoties adversus regales impetus pro viduarum, immo omnium, 
depositis certamen subierimus. Commune hoc vobiscum mihi. Cf. Thomassini Vetus et 
nova Ecclesiae disiplina de beneficiis, p. ii. 1. iii. c. 87, and’c. 95, 96.. Bingham. lib. ii. c. 8. 

10 Macedonius, vicar of the diocese of Africa, writes respecting it to Augustine (August. 
Ep. 152): Officium sacerdotii vestri esse dicitis intervenire pro reis, et nisi obtineatis, of 
fendi, quasi quod erat officii vestri, minime reportetis. Hic ergo vehementer ambigo, utrum 
istud ex religione descendat. Nam si a Domino peccata adeo prohibentur, ut ne poeni- 
tendi quidem copia post primum tribuatur; quaemadmodum nos possumus ex religione con- 
tendere, ut nobis qualecumque illud crimen fuerit, dimittatur? quod utique, cum impuni- 
tum volumus, probamus, etc. To this Augustine replies, Ep. 153, ex. gr. § 3: Morum corri- 
gendorum nullus alius quam in hac vita locus est.—Ideo compellimur humani generis caritate 
intervenire pro reis, ne istam vitam sic finiant per supplicium, ut ea finita non possint finire 
supplicium. Noli ergodubitare hoc officium nostrum ex religione descendere, etc. Comp. the 
intercession for the Circumcelliones who were to have been executed for murders, August. 
Ep. 133, ad Marcellinum Tribunum: Si non audis amicum petentem, audi Episcopum con- 
sulentem. Quamvis quoniam Christiano loquar, maxime in tali causa, non arroganter dix- 
erim, audire te Episcopum convenit jubentem. Against violent mterferences of the clergy, 
as they took place for example in Antioch (Chrysostomi Ep. ad Olympiadem and Orat. ad 
popul. Antioch. 17,) Theodosius I. a.p. 392, and Arcadius, A.D. 398, enacted laws (Cod. Theod. 


. ix. xl.15 and 16.) The latter: Addictos supplicio, et pro criminum immanitate damnatos, nulli 


Clericorum vel Monachoram—per vim atque usurpationem vindicare liceatac tenere. Qui- 
busin causa criminali humanitatis consideratione, si tempora suffragantur, interponendae pro- 
vocationis copiam non negamus.—Reos tempore provocationis emenso ad locum poenae sub 
prosecutione pergentes, nullus aut teneat aut defendat.—Si tanta Clericorum ac Monacho- 
rum audacia est, ut bellum potius quam judicium futurum esse existimetur, ad Clementiam 
Nostram commissa referantur, ut nostro mox severior ultio procedat arbitrio. Ad Episco- 
porum sane culpam redundabit, si quid forte in ea parte regionis, in qua ipsi populo chris- 
tianae religionis, doctrinae insinuatione, moderantur, ex his quae fieri hac lege prohibemus, 
a Monachis perpetratum esse cognoverint, nec vindicaverint. 

uu At first merely through custom (examples Ammian. Marcell. xxvi.3. Zosimus. iv. 40; 
y. 8. Gregor. Naz. Orat. xx. in laudem Basilii, Opp. i. 353, ete.) which is referred to as 
already in.existence in the restrictive laws of Theodosius I. and Arcadius (Cod. Theod. 
ix. 45, 1-3), and formally confirmed and strictly defined by Theodosius II. in the year 431 
ibid. 1. 4). Bingham, vol. iii. p. 353 ss.' (Abele) Magazin fir Kirchenrecht u. Kirchea- 
gesch. St. 1, (Leipz. 1778. 8.) 5, 189, ss. 


Ly ee ee ee ee we See. 2 ‘ Re ¢ Mi ee ebay eae as 





CHAP. Ill.—HIERARCHY. § 91. IMPORTANCE OF THE CLERGY. 365 


naturally out of the old ecclesiastical notions before the emper- 
ors began to confirm them severally by laws.” 


On the other side, ecclesiastical possessions became very con+ 


siderable, partly by the liberality of the emperors,’’ partly by 
the legal permission to accept of inheritances and gifts, which 
alas, was often abused by the clergy, so as to become legacy- 
hunting.“ All these external advantages attracted many to the 
spiritual profession,’® the number of clergy was swelled beyond 
measure, and to the already existing classes were added para- 
bolani, copiatae.‘* The emperors were obliged to meet this 


. } So Constantini lex a.D, 329. (Cod. Justin. i: iv. 25): Quae de atea, sive ut vocant cot- 
tis, ac de eorum prohibitione a nobis sancita sunt, ea liceat Dei amicissimis Episcopis et 
perscrutari, et cohibere, si fiant, et flagitiosos per clarissimos Praesides provinciarum, et 
Patres defensoresque civitatum ad modestiam reducere.. Honorii a.p. 408. _ (Cod. Theod. 
xvi, x. 19), in reference to all kinds of idolatry: Episcopis quoque locorum haec ipsa prohi- 
bendi ecclesiasticae manus tribuimus facultatem; A.D. 409 (Cod. Theod. ix. iii. 7), after the 
judges had been admonished to treat the prisoners more humanely : Nec deerit Antistitum 
christianae religionis cura laudabilis quae ad observationem constituti judicis hanc ingerat 
monitionem. Of. Cod. Theod v. v.2; v. vii.2; xv. viii. 2; ef. C. W. de Rhoer Dissertt. de 
effectu religionis christ. in jurisprudentiam Rom. (Fasc. i. Groningae. 1776. 8.) p. 94, ss. 

13 Particularly out of the parochial property of the cities (see § 75, note 9), the property 
of the heathen temples (Cod. Theod. xvi. 20) and of heretical churches Cod. Theod. xvi. v. 
43, 52, 57, 65, etc.). _Hilarius contra Constantium jam vita defunctum, c. 10: Auro reipubli- 
cae sanctum Dei honoras, et vel detracta templis vel publicata edictis, vel exacta poenis 
Deo ingeris. 


+4 So Gregory Naz. Ep. 80 remarks, while admonishing Aérius and Alypius to pay the - 


legacy of their mother into the church, ‘6rz roAAoi kai bAav oixkwv éurorovpérov ei¢ ’Ex- 
- KAnoiacg qvéicxorvTo, of 62 Kai wap’ gavTby macav Tpochyovto Thy Tweptovotay Kai THY 
Kadniorny éxpaypareboavto mpayyateiar, yevécbat bid Tov exe TAOdDTOV TévyTEC LI 
Toivuy oreipnte detdopévac, iva mAovoiwe Gepjonte,—ravta ue? ndovac Kal dardpétyTo¢e 
éxidévtes, 2 axodévte¢ Oc olkeia Ta Tod Oeod. On the other hand, Valentiniani I. lex a.p 
370, ad Damasum Epise. urbis Rom. (Cod. Theod. xvi. ii. 20): Ecclesiastici, aut ex Eecle- 
siasticis, vel qui continentium se volunt nomine nuncupari, viduarum ac pupillarum domos 
non adeant: sed publicis exterminentur judiciis, si posthac eos adfines earum vel propin- 
qui putaverint deferendos. Censemus etiam, ut memorati nihil de ejus mulieris, cui se 
privatim sub praetextu religionis adjunxerint, liberalitate quacunque, vel extremo judicio 
possint adipisci, et omne in tantum ineflicax sit, quod alicui horum ab his fuerit derelictum, 
ut nec per subjectam personam valeant aliquid, vel donatione vel testamento, percipere, etc. 
On this subject Jerome Epist. 34 (al. 2) ad Nepotianum: Nec de lege conqueror, sed doleo 
cur meruerimus hanc legem. Cauterium bonum est sed quo mihi vulnus, ut indigeam 
cauterio? Provida severaque legis cautio, et tamen nec sic refraenatur avaritia. Comp. 
the laws of Theodosius IL.-1. c. 1; 27 and 28. 

15 Tn a one-sided way Athanasius Hist. Arian: ad Siamihoay c. 78, designates only the 
Meletian clergy as of pv 2& eiddQav eAdovrec, of 62 é« Tod BovAevrnptov, Kai Tie TPOTHE 
rohitetag, did THY Takaixwpov @Aeitoupynoiay Kal xpooraciay. Basilius Ep. 54, blames 
his country bishops on account of their subservience to men, TOv TAeiorwv 968Q THe 
otpatodoyiag eionotobvtwr éavTove Th brnpecia. 

*¢ In the work entitled de Septem ordinibus Ecclesiae (Opp. ed. Martian. v. 100), 
ascribed to Jerome, the copigtae appear under the name fossarii as the lowest order of 
the clergy. According to a law of Theodosius II. a.p. 416 (Cod. Theod. xiv. ii. 42) no 
more than 500 parabolani were to be in Alexandria. In the year 418 he permitted 600 


366 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D. 324-451. 


pressure, which became dangerous to the state; with stringent 
laws.'7 

Under these circumstances the power of the bishops particu- 
larly rose. At the head of a numerous clergy completely sub- 
ject to them, they alone had power to decide on the appropria- 
tion of the church estates,'* and controlled ecclesiastical legisla- 
tion by their exclusive privilege of having a voice at synods. 
Hence they continued to make the country bishops more sub- 
servient to them ;'® to the other churches in cities and in the 
country (ecclesia plebana, titulus), except the head church (ecel, 
cathedralis) they sent according to their own free choice, pres- 
byters (parochus, plebanus),”° to conduct the worship of God, 
who were entirely dependent on them even in the matter of 
maintenance. The first person next to the bishop was the 
archdeacon,”' who helped him to manage the revenues. The 
arch-presbyters,”® an order which arose about the same time, 
were of far inferior rank. All the lower clergy and the presby- 


(ibid. i, 43). The same emperor reduced the number of copiatae in Constantinople from 
1100 to 950 (Cod. Just. i. ii. 4). 

17 Constantine’s law to this effect before the year 320 (Cod. Theod. xvi. ii. 3): Nullum 
deinceps Decurionem, vel ex Decurione progenitum, vel etiam instructum idoneis faculta- 
tibus, atque obeundis publicis muneribus opportunum, ad Clericorum nomen obsequiumque 
confugere: sed eos de cetero in defanctorum duntaxat Clericorum loca subrogari, qui for- 
tuna tenues, neque muneribus civilibus teneantur obstricti.. Constantius allowed in 361 
(Cod. Th. xii. i. 49) eyery curialis admission into the clerical office, curia promente con- 
sensum, maxime si.totius populi vocibus expetatur: otherwise he should give over his _ 
property to his children, or relatives, or the senate. This resigning of goods. became 
afterward a general law (Cod. Th. xii. i. 59, 99, 104, 115, 121, 123, 163, 172, ete). Riffel, 
i. 164. 

18 Riffel, i. 128. 

19 See Diy. L § 68, note 2. Conc. Antioch. ann. 341, can. 10: Tove Kopercandrove, ei 
Kal yverpobeciav elev émtoxérav elAngérec, tdoge rH kyia ovvddw—Kalioréy avayvéorag 
kal brodtaxdvove Kal épopxiotag,—pjre 62 mpeoBirepoy pjte. dlaKovov yetporovely ToA- 
“dy dixa Tov év TH mbAEL ExroKd6ToV, H.drd6KEevTar abrb¢ TE Kai hf YOPA,—YopEerioxorov 
62 yivecOar b7d Tod. THE TOAEWC, F bTéKELTAL, éexvokdrov. Conv. Laodiceni (between 
320 and 372) Can. 57: “Ore od dei év Tai Képmare, Kal év Taic YOpaic KaBioracba éri0- 
Kémovg, ) GAAG TEpLtodevTde* Tove pévTor On mpoKaractabévTac wndev TPGTTELw dveEev 
yvaune Tob émiokorov Tod év TH TOA. OoatTtuc dé Kai Tode mpEcBuTEépove undéev TparT- 
Tew Gvev Tig young Tod émioKérov. Probably it-was not meant by this canon to do 
away with the existing country bishops, but only to prevent the establishment of new 
bishoprics. Accordingly we find frequent mention of country bishops long after. Basil 
the Great had fifty in his diocese (Gregor. Naz. de vita sua, p. 8), Theodoret, Ep. 113, 
names two of his suburbans, etc. 

20 Thomassini Vetus et nova eccles. disciplin. p- i. ih. 2, e 21,.ss. Bingham, lib. ix. ¢. 8, 
vol. iii. p..590. 

21 Thomassini, p. i. lib. 2, c. 17. Bingham vol. i. p. 338, J.G. Pertsch Abhandl. v. d. 
Ursprunge der Archidiaconen, 2c. Hildesheim. 1743. 8. 

22 Thomassini, p. i. lib. 2, c.3. Bingham, vol. i. p. 301. 





CHAP. IIl.—_HIERARCHY. § 91. IMPORTANCE OF THE CLERGY. 367 


ters too were now chosen by the bishop alone. The choice of 
bishops mostly depended on the other bishops of the provinces, 
except when the emperors interfered. Still, however, the con- 
sent of the people was required, and was not without weight, 
especially in the west.” 

Under these external advantages, it is not surprising that the 
prevailing notions of priestly dignity, and especially of the 
bishops’ authority rose higher and higher; and that the bishops 
externally enjoyed the highest demonstrations of respect, their 
claims as the viears of Christ and the successors of the apostles 
being capable of indefinite development." Yet their overween- 
ing pride often gave just cause for complaint *° 


23 The bishop was chosen ’Exickérwv cvvddy, widow KAnpikGy, aithoet Aady (Petri 
Alex. Epist. in Theodoreti H. E. iv. 19). The person elected by the clergy was either 
accepted by the voice of the people crying out "Afzoc, bene meritus, bene dignus; or they 
cried ’Avdéfio¢ (Augustini Epist. 110. Philostorgius, ix. 10. Constitut. Apost. viii. 4). 
Leo Epist. 10, c. 3: Qui praefuturus est omnibus, ab omnibus eligatur. Thomassini, p. ii. 
lib. 2, c. 2 and 3. Bingham, vol. ii. p. 90, ss. Staudenmaier’s Gesch. d. Bischofswahlen, 
S. 24. Riffel, i. 574. 

24 The assertion, so pregnant with consequences, that the priesthood stands above 

- royalty, in which during the third century nothing but a secret pride could take delight 
(Diy. I. § 69, note 1), was not only repeated (see Chrysost. Homil. 4, de verbis Isaiae, de 
Sacerdotio, iii. c. 1, Homil. 15, in Epist. ii. ad Corinth. comp. Gregor. Naz. above, note 8), 
‘but was now also outwardly manifested in the conduct. Standing titles of the bishops 
were Dominus beatissimus (comp. Wiggers’ Augustinismus, ii. 37) or sanctissimus, rev- 
erendissimus, deordTn¢ do1wTatoc, aideciudraroc, Beatitudo, Sanctitas tua, 7 of yono- 
TOTHS, pakapLoTnc or dytoTH¢. Marks of reverence which were paid them even by 
emperors were the jroxdiveww Kepadgny and karagiieiv Tac yeipac. See Bingham, vol. i. 
p. 134. When Eusebia, spouse of the emperor Constantius, did not observe such things 
‘in receiving the salutations of the bishops, the Eusebian bishop of Tripolis, Leontius, 
declared to her (Philostorgius, ap. Suidam, s. v. Aeévrioc), that he would: appear before 
her only under the following conditions: “Iv’ eicéA Bote piv eyo, od 0 abtixa Tod Opdvov 
Tob tnyndod KatdBaca, wer aldots dravtHoerag éuol, Kai THY Kedadqy brdoxye Talc 
éuaic yepoiv, ebdoyiav dfiounévn’ xarecta Kabecbeinv piv av eyo, ob 0 dv éorhKore 
aidovuévyn, drétay dé Kehetcayu, xabedovuévyn, jvixa doinv td civOnua. Ei obtwe 
alpjoy, ddtxoiuyy rapé oe, k. Tt. 2. Comp. the conduct of bishop Maf€inus at the court 
‘of Maximus. At table the emperor ordered the cup to be first presented to him (Sulp. 
Severus de vita Mart. c. 20), expectans atque ambiens, ut ab illius dextera poculum 
sumeret. Sed Martinus ubi ebibit, pateram presbytero suo tradidit, nullum scilicet ex- 
istimans digniorem, qui post se biberet. At another time the empress waited on him 
at table (Sulp. Severi Dial. ii. 6): Comp. generally: Chrysost. de Sacerdotio. The work - 
de Dignitate, found among the writings of Ambrose, is not by him, but by Gerbert (Syl- 
‘yester II. about 1000). See Mabillon Analecta, p. 103. 

Bc: Hieronym. ad Tit.c.1: De episcopatu intumescunt, et putant se,non dispensationem 
Christi sed imperium consecutos—Sciat episcopus et presbyter sibi populum conservum ~ 
“esse, non servam. 


368 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D.-324~451. 


§ 92. 
DEPENDENCE OF THE HIERARCHY ON THE STATE. 


Notwithstanding these outward honors enjoyed by the hierar- 
chy, they could the less escape from a dependence on the state 
in many ways,’ as they presented a vulnerable side to it by 
their acquisition of property ;? and as the government of the Ro- 
man emperors, since the removal of their residence to the east, 
began to assume an oriental despotic character.® 

The first occasion of interference in ecclesiastical matters was 
offered by the hierarchy itself when involved in an uninterrupted 
series of controversies.*. The emperors wished, and also ought, 
according to the desire of the hierarchy, to tolerate only the cath- 
olic church ;° but as this name was claimed exclusively by so 
many parties, the emperors were obliged to decide to which it 
belonged, and what doctrine accordingly should be considered 
the catholic doctrine. To this end they summoned councils, 
allowing them to consult under the superintendence of their 
commissioners ;’ and then gave imperial confirmation to their 


1 The two Luciferians Faustinus and Marcellinus in libello precum first complained of 
this (Bibl. PP. Lugd. v. 656): Imperatoris arbitrio Episcopi nunc ex catholicis fiunt haere- 
tici, et iidem Episcopi ex haereticis ad fidem catholicam revertuntur. Isidorus Pelus. 
lib. v. Ep. 268, ad Cyrill. Epise.: Téaat wév 7 lepwotvy mxraiovoay tiv Bactheiav 
OtapBoiro Kai écwgpévile, viv d2 dx’ éxeivgv yéyovey, k. tT. 2. Socrates, lib. iv. Proem.: 
_ Ad’ ob yptortavifery qpavto (ol Bacideic), Ta tHE "ExkAgolag mpadyyata jpryto && 
abtév, kal ai péytotat Sivodot TH aitév yvoug yeyévaci te Kal yivovrat. 

2 Faustinus and Marcellinus, 1. c. p. 654, respecting the bishops who had fallen away 
under Constantius (see § 82, note 14): Non dignantur pro Christo Filio Dei exilium 
perpeti, cum propriis sedibus et Ecclesiarum perniciossimis possessionibus oblectantur. 
—Episcopi plusram regis terreni timuerant quam Christam. 

. § ©. W. de Rhoer Dissert. de effectu relig. christ. in jurispradentiam Romanam, p- 40, ss. 

* First by the Donatists. See Div. I. 

5 Constantine’s law, A-D. 326 (Cod. Theod. xvi. v. 1): Privilegia, quae contemplatione 
religionis indulta sunt, catholicae tantum legis observatoribus prodesse oportet. Haere- 
ticos autem, atque schismaticos non tantum ab his bie alienos esse volumus, sed 
etiam diversis muneribus constringi et subjici. 

6 Comp. the law of Theodosius I. a.D 380, Cod. Theod. xvi. 1, 2, see above § 83, note 32. 

7 Eusebius de vita Const. i. 44: ‘Egaiperov ra éxxAqoig tod Jeov tiv rap’ aitod 
véuwv gpovtida, diadepouévov Tivdv mpdc GAAHAovE KaTa Staddpove ydpac, oid TLE 
kowvoe éxiocxoroc éx Oeot Kabectapévoc, cvvédove Tov Tov Beot AecTovpydv ovvexpéret. 
Constant. Epist. ad Syn. Tyriam (ibid. iv. 42): "AwéoresAa mpoc¢ od¢ éBovaqOnte Tov 
éxioxérwv, iva mapayevopevol, Kotvevicwow tiv Tov opovticudtwrv: dréotetAa Ato- 
viotov Tov axd inaTiKOv, O¢ Kal Tove GdeiAovTag sic THY CdvOdoY ddikécOat LEP bpydv 
éirouvqoet, kai Tov mpatrouévar, earpétac 62 tig ebragiag KatdoKxonoc mapéotat* bay 
yap tic, Gc éy® obK olopat, THy hueTépav Kédevowy Kai viv diaxpovcacbat meipipevoc, 





CHAP. IIlL—HIERARCHY. § 92. DEPENDENCE ON THE STATE 369 


decrees.* But when the controversy was not terminated by 
this means, as usually happened, the emperors were often led 
_by political, often by religious motives, often by court cabals, to 
step in with new decisions, sometimes taking a middle course, 
sometimes giving the superiority to the party formerly con- 
demned.® ‘The party favored by the emperor then appeared to 
look upon the civil power as exercised only for the protection of 
the church,’® and none but the defeated maintained that mat- 
ters of faith should not be submitted to the emperor’s decision, 

~ but to the bishops.“ 
Besides these great party questions, individuals among the 
clergy had also many particular cases in which the interference 
of the emperors was solicited, although councils soon forbade 


un Bovdnby napayevéobat, évreiiley rap’ huov éroorahjoerat, bc 4x BactAtkod xpoc- 
téypatocg abtov éxBakav d¢ ob rpoojKev Spore adtoxpdtopog trép Tig GAnBeiac &&- 
eveyOeiow dytiteiver, duddfer. The emperor gave full powers to the tribune Marcellinus 
to decide the controversy between the Catholics and Donatists, AD. 411. See Gesta 
Collationis Carthaginensis diei i. c. 4 (annexed to Optatus Milev. ed. du Pin, p. 247): Cui 
quidem disputationi principe loco te judicem volumus residere, omnemque vel in congre- 
gandis Episcopis, vel evocandis, si adesse contemserint, curam te volumus sustinere, ut 
et ea, quae ante mandata sunt, et quae nunc statata coguoscis, probata possis implere 
solertia: id ante omnia servaturus, ut ea quae circa catholicam legem vel olim ordinavit 
antiquitas, vel parentum nostrorum auctoritas religiosa constituit, vel nostra serenitas 
troboravit, novella subreptione submota, integra et inviolata custodias. Comp. Fuch’s 
Bibl. der Kirchenversammlungen, Th. 3, S. 166. 

8 Epist. Conc. ii. oecumen. (Constantinop. ann. 381) ad Theodosium Imp. (Mansi, iii. p. 
557): AedueOa tolvuv tic of¢ quepétnto¢ ypdpuare THE ORC eboeBiag ExckupwOpvat Tic 
auvidov Tov Whdov * lv’ Gorep Toi¢ Tig KAjoEwe ypdumaot THY éExkAgoiav TetipgKac, obTa 
kat tov dokdvtwy éxtogpaylon¢ Td TéAog. Cf. de Marca de eoncord. Sac. et Imp. lib. ii, 
c. 10, § 10, ss. lib. vi. c. 22. 

2 Thus Athanasius Hist. Arian. ad Mon. c. 33, puts into the mouth of Constantius, in 
reply to the bishops assembled in Milan (355) these words: “Orep éy BotAouat, toto 
kavav voulécdw* otto yap pov AEyovtog évéxovtat of tig Supiacg Aeyduevoi Exicxorot. 
} Toivuv reicOnre, 7 Kal bueic bmepoptos pevgoedde. 

10 To the Donatists, who reported the imperial decisions with the words (Optatus 
Milev. i. 22): Quid Christianis cua Regibus? aut quid Epis¢opis cum palatio? and (ibid. _ 
iii. 3): Quid est Imperatori cust Ecclesia? Optatus replies (1. c.): Non Respublica ést 
“in Ecclesia, sed Ecclesia in Republica est, i.e., in Imperio Romano.—Cum super 
Imperatoram non sit nisi solus Deus, qui fecit Imperatorem, dum se Donatus super 
Imperatorem extollit, jam quasi hominum excesserat metas, ut prope se Deum, non 
hominem aestimaret, non reverendo eum, qui post Deum ab hominibus timebatur. 

12 Hosii Epist: ad Constantium (in Athanasii Hist. Arianoram ad Monachos, c. .44) : 
My rider ceavriv elc Td ExkAnotacTiKa, unde od TeEpi TobTwV juiv mapaKeAcbov~ GAAE 
paAnov rap’ judv ov pavOave TavTa. col Bacrreiav b Oedc éveyeipicer, qyuiv Ta Tie 
éxkAnotac ixiotevce. Kai darep 6 Thy ov apxny broKhéxtov dyTiréyet TH Oratazapév@ 
Ge@~ obra GoBHONTL, uy Kai od Ta Tic éxkAnatac el¢ éavtov éAkwv brevOvvog éyxAhuate 
peydaw yévn. So, too, Athanasius, lib. cit. in various passages. Leontius bishop of 
Tripolis said to Constantius (Suidas, s. v. AeévTvoc) : Sarasa, brag Etepa dcérey Taybeic, 
érépouc éxixelpetc; OTPATLOTLKOY péev Kal TOALTLKOY TpayLdTwY TPOEGTAKAC, ‘Extoxérote 
62 mepi TOV eig wovoug ’Exickérove qxévTwv dcataTréouevoc. 


voL. L—24 


370 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D. 324-451. 


such supplications to the emperor.” - The clergy indeed endeav- 
ored, backed as they were by imperial privileges, to make 
themselyes as independent as possible of the other authorities of 
the state,’* but they still acknowledged the emperor to be their 
highest judge,’ so much so that the- Roman bishop regarded it 
a distinction to be judged only by the emperor.’ None ven- 
tured to call in question the supreme authority of the emperor, 
as far as it did not violate the rights of conscience ;** and the 
_imperial laws, even when they touched the church, were re- 
ceived by the bishops with implicit obedience.’ The great in- 
fluence exercised by the emperors, partly in filling up.the most 


#2 Conc. Antioch. ann. 341, c. 12: Ei ruc bxd.Tod idiov ’Exioxérov Kabarpebeic mpecBo- 
Tepoc, 7) didKovoc, } Kal ’Exicxorog ixd cvvddov, tvoxAjoat ToAujoete tag Baothéwe 
axodc, déov éxt peifova "Exioxéxwv civodov tpémecGat, al & vopiter dixaa tye 
mpocavagépey TAcioow éxioxérotg, Kal THY aiTay ééraciv Te Kal éxixprow éxdéxeoOat’ 
ei 82 TobT HY bALyuphcac tvoyAnoeie TH BactAel, Kal TodTOV undeuLac ovyyvoune G&tovcbat, 
und? yopaw axohoytac Exe, und? EArvida dxoxatactécewe xpocdoxGy. This is repeated 

_ by the Conc. Constantin. amn. 381, c. 6—Conc. Antioch. c. 11, forbids all the clergy to go 
to the emperor avev yveune Kal ypaupatwr Tov év TH éapyia éxtoxérwr, Kal udAtora 
Tod. Kata Tiv pyTpoTorLy. Conc. Sardic. can. latinus 8 (graec. 7): Quidam non cessant 
comitatum ire Episcopi, et maxime Afri:—ut non solum ad comitatum multas et diversas 
Ecclesiae non profuturas perferant causas, neque ut fieri solet aut oportet, ut pauperibus, 
aut viduis, aut pupillis subvenigtur: sed et dignitates saeculares et administrationes 
quibusdam postulent. Haec itaque pravitas olim non solum murmurationes, sed et 
scandala excitavit. Honestum est autem, ut Episcopi intercessionem his praestent, 
qui iniqua vi opprimuntur, aut si vidua affligatur, aut pupillus exspolietur: si tamen 
ista omnia justam habeant causam, aut petitionem. Si ergo vobis fratres carissimi. 
placet, decernite, ne Episcopi ad comitatum accedant, nisi forte hi, qui religiosi Impera- 
toris literis vel invitati, vel evocati fuerint—Universi dixerunt: Placet, et constituatur. 

13 See above, § 91, note 5. 

14 Thus Athanasius asked of Constantine (Athanas. Apol. contra Arianos, c. 9), véutuov 
éxtoxixuv obvodov evyKpoTnOivat, 7} Kat abtdy (Bacidéa) déEacbar Tv drodoyiar, dr 
éxyyayov avT@, and came for this purpose efter the synod of Tyre in person to Constan- 
tinople. Socrates, i. 33, ss. 

18 Epistola Rom. Concilii ad Gratianum et Valentiniannm Impp. a.p. 378 (in J. Sirmondi 
append. Cod. Theodos. p. +78, and ap. Coustant ameng Damasi Epistt. no. 6): Accipite 
aliud quoque, quod*vir sanctus (Damasus) vestrae magis conferre pietati, quam sibi 
praestare desiderat, nec derogare cuiquam, sed principibus adrogare ; quoniam non novum 
aliquid petit, sed sequitur exempla majorum: ut Episcopus Romanus, si concilio ejus 
zausa non creditur, apud concilium se imperiale defendat. Nam et Sylvester Papa a 
sacrilegis accusatus, apud parentem vestrum Constantinum causam propriam prosecutus 
est. Et de scripturis similia exempla suppeditant: quod cum a praeside sanctus A. .s- 
tolus vim pateretur. Caesarem appellavit, et ad Caesarem missus est. ; 

18 See Optatus, above, note 10. Ambrosius Apolog. David. c. 10: Nullis David legibus 
tenebatur, quia liberi sunt Reges a vinculis delictoram, nec enim ullis ad poenam vocantur 
legibus, tuti Imperii Majestate. ; 

17 To the law Cod. Theod. xvi. ii. 20, ad Damasum Epise. urbis Rom. (see above, § 91, 
“note 14) the remark is annexed: lecta in ecclesiis Rom. (comp. the evasive remarks of 
Baronius, ann. 370, no. 123). Gothofredus ad h.l. gives several examples of the reading 
of the imperial laws in churches. y 


CHAP. I. —HIERARCHY. § 93. IN THE EAST. 371 


‘important episcopal sees, partly in even deposing and appointing - 
bishops without farther ceremony,” naturally secured to them 
the obedience of the clergy, and with it the direction of ecclesi- 
astical affairs. The slavish Greeks now began to attribute to 
them a priestly character.!* A strict theory respecting the 
limits of the ecclesiastical and civil power was not yet laid 
‘ down.”° 


§ 93. 


ORIGIN OF PATRIARCHS, ESPECIALLY IN THE EAST. 


Traité historique de la Primauté en Véglise par D. Blondel. Genéve. 1641. fol.—Jo. 
Morini Exercitatt. ecclesiasticae et biblicae: Paris. 1669. fol. (diss. i. de Patriarcharum 
et Primatum origine).—L. E. du Pin de Antiqua eccles. disciplina dissertt. Paris. 1686. 
4. Diss. i—L. Thomassini Vetus et nova Ecclesiae disciplina lib. i. cap. 7-20.—Bingham 
Origg. eccl. lib. ii. cap. 17.—J. W. Janus de Origine Patriarcharum christianorum 
diss. ii. Viteb. 1718..4.—W. C. L. Ziegler’s pragm- Gesch. der. kirchl. Verfassungs- 
formen in den ersten sechs Jahrh. ~ Leipzig. 1798. 8. S. 164, ff.—Planck’s Gesch. d. 
christ]. kirchl. Gesellschaftsverfassung. Bd. 1. S. 598, ff. 


In the preceding period it has been already seen, that the 
three great metropolitans of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, 


18 Especially in Constantinople. Thomassini Vetus et nova Eccl. discipl. p. ii. lib. 2, 
ce. 6. Riffel, i. 589. 

19 Assent at the synod of Constantinople in the year 448 (Mansi, vi. 733): TloAAd ra éty 
7 dpytepet Baorred. The later emperors seriously laid claim to the priestly dignity by 
virtue of their being anointed. Thus the abbot Maximus in Constantinople 655, is asked 
(Mansi, xi. 6): Ergo non est omnis christianus Imperator etiam sacerdos? to which indeed 
he replies, Non est. Leo the Isaurian about 730 writes to Pope Gregory II. (Mansi, xii. 
976): Baowtede Kal lepede ius. The throne of the emperor in the church was at first 
beside that of the bishop at the choir, till Ambrose assigned it a place close to the choir. 
Sozom. vii. 25). Yet the emperor ventured to lay his oblations on the altar himself. 
Conc. Quinisext. A.D. 692, can. 69. 

20 Eusebius de vita Const. iv. 24, relates the following, after he had spoken of Constan- 
tine’s activity against Paganism: "Ev@ev elxétw¢ abroc év éotidcet rote dektobuero¢ 
éntokdrove, Adyov abjKev, OC dpa ein Kai adbtog exioKxoroc. OdE TH abToic eixdv Piuacw 
é@” jjetépace GKoaig* “dad? tueic uev Tdv elow Tipe ExkAnoiac, éyO d2 Tav éxtig bd 
Get Kkabeotauévoc éricxoroc av einv.” dxddovba 0 odv TH Adyw dLavootuevog, Tode 
ipyouévoug Gravrac éreokérel, mpovtpené Te bon wep dv % dbvautc Tov eboeBH wera- 
d.éxery Biov. Different explanations of these words of Constantine may be seen in Ch. 
G. F. Walch de rote clow ric éxxAnoiac et roic éxtdc Constantini M. in the Commen- 
tationes Soc. Gottingensis, vol. vi. p. 81, ss. Heinichen Excurs. iv., annexed to his edition 
of Euseb. de vita Const. p. 537. Since an expression like exioxonoc TpayudTev can not 
be pointed out, and there follows immediately after éruoxomeiv dpxouévove, Constantine 
probably did not mean ra éxrdc, but rode éxrdc. Ol éxté¢ and of dpyduevor-Gravtec 
must be the same, and thus we obtain the following explanation: “Be ye the overseers 
of those who belong to the church, and so far as they belong to it: let me be the overseer 
of those without the church, and in so far as they are out of it (whether it be wholly ax 
heathen, or partly, i. e., Christians in their civil relations). 


372 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 324-481, 


were distinguished from the other metropolitans by having sey- 
eral provinces under their oversight. This institution came up 

for discussion at the council of Nice, probably on occasion of the 
Meletian schism in Egypt; and was confirmed by the 6th can,! 
At the same time provincial synods were still eclcne pistes at 
this council as the highest ecclesiastical authority.” 

But during the subsequent Arian commotions, the provincial 
synods were too weak to be able to withstand, inthe eternal 
party-strife, powerful opponents who were often supported by 
state. authority. By this means the bishops were induced to- 
form still larger hierarchical associations by which they might 
individually obtain greater security. In the political, often 


2 Can. Nic. vi.: Ta dpyaia é0n xpateitw, Ta év Alyintw Kai AlBin nai TlevtaréAer, 
@ote Tov ’AAesavdpeiac éxiokotov TavTwv TobTwv éExew Thy sovoiav: énetdh Kal TH 
év TH Popy éxtoxéry Toto cbvnbéc otw’ duoiwe 62 Kai Kata THY ’AvTioxerav, Kal év 
taic dhAae éapyia Ta rpeaBeia oileoPar Taic éxxAgotarc. Kabddov 62 xpddniov 
éxeivo, te el tig ywpic yroun¢ Tob uyTpoToAitov yévoito éxiokxoToc, Tov ToLODTOY % 
peyadn cbvodog Opice pH Oeiv elvat Extokornoy. The Romans made what they inferred frony 
this canon in favor of their church the superscription of it im their oldest Cod. canonum (see 
it ap. Mansi, vi. 1186 ; comp. Labbei observ. ap. Mansi, ii. 688), whieh afterward was incor- 
porated with the canon. So the Roman legates cited it at the council of Chalcedon 
(Mansi, vii. 444): Eeclesia Romana semper habuit primatum. Teneat autem et Aegyptus, 
Libya, et Pentapolis, ita ut Episeopus Alexandriae haram omnium habeat potestatem: 
quoniam et Romano Episcopo haec est consuetudo, etc. But on the other hand, in the 
Prisca, which dates immediately after the council of Chalcedon (Mansi, vi. 1127): Antiqui 
moris est, ut urbis Romae Episcopus habeat principatum, ut suburbicaria loca et omnem 
provinciam suam sollicitudine gubernet. Quae vero apud Aegyptum sunt, Alexandriae 
Episcopus omnium habeat sollicitudinem. Similiter autem et circa Antiochiam, et in 
caeteris provinciis privilegia propria serventur metropolitanis ecclesiis, etc. Nicolaus I. 
(a.D. 863) Ep. viii. ad Michaelem (ap. Mansi, xv. 206) explains the canon thus: Denique 
si ‘instituta Nicaenae synodi diligenter inspiciantur, invenietur profecto, quia Romanae 
Ecclesiae nullam eadem Synodus contulit incrementum: sed potius ex ejus forma, quod 
Alexandriae Ecclesiae tribuerit particulariter, sumpsit exenrplum. On the other hand 
Bellarmine de Romano Pontifice, lib. ii. c. 13: Alexandrinum debere gubernare illas pro- 
vincias, quia Romanus Episcopus ita consuevit, id est, quia Romanus Episcopus ante 
omnem Conciliorum definitionem consuevit permittere Episcopo Alexandrino regimen 
Aegypti, Libyae, et Pentapolis, sive consuevit per Alexandrinum Episcopum illas pro- 
vincias gubernare. In later times, the only point of dispute has been whether in this 
canon, as the Greek canonists Johannes Scholasticus, Theod. Balsamon, and Zonaras 
assume, patriarchal rights (so: Sirmond, Em. Schelstrate, Natalis Alexander, etc.), or 
metropolitan rights (so J. Launoy, Sam. Basnage, etc.), are spoken of. The copious litera- 
ture on the subject may be seen in Sagittarii Introduct. in Hist. Eccl. ii. 1224, ss. 

2 Can. Nic. 4 confirms to the provincial synod its influence.in the election of bishops. 
Canon 5 recognizes it as the highest court of appeal in cases of excommunication. Conc. 
Antioch. ann. 341, c. 15: Ei tig éxioxowog éni ticw éyxAjpaciv KxatnyopnOeic, Kpt- 
Gein bxd navtav Tov tv TH éexapyig ertoxérwv, navTe¢ Te chudwrot piav Kar’ abrod 
” Bevéynotey pigov: toirov pyeért map’ éréporg dixdlecBar, GA20 péverv BeBaiay tHv 
Ctudwvov tov éxi érapylac éxicxémwv arddacty. In case of division among the pro- 
vincial bishops, the metropolitan, according to canon 14, is empowered to summon bishops 
from the neighboring province. 


CHAP. UIL—HIERARCHY. § 93. IN THE EAST. _ 373 


ecclesiastical separation of the east and west, this new hierar-- 


chical deyolopnigne proceeded in a diffrent mode in the two 
empires. 

In the east, the political division of the provinces had been 
followed from the first in the development of the metropolitan 
institution, and the fundamental principle became more and 
more established, that the ecclesiastical should constantly follow 
the political division of previnces.* Accordingly, in the forma- 
tion’ of larger hierarchical bodies,* they adhered to the political 
distribution of the realm into dioceses, which had been made by 
Constantine.’ The bishops of every diocese became more closely 
connected with each other; the bishop of the chief city in the 
diocese was their common president, and was elevated by this 
means above the other metropolitans. Yet his rights were de- 
fined according to earlier ecclesiastical relations, and for this 
reason were not alike in all dioceses. In Egypt, the bishop of 
Alexandria had almost monarchical power ;° the power -of the 
bishop of Antioch in the east was less ;’ less still was that of 


3 Conf. Conc. Antiochen. can. 9, see Div. I. § 68, note 4. When Cappadocia was di- 
vided into two provinces, 4.p. 371, Basil was disposed to resist the application of this 
principle against the bishop of Tyana, Gregor. Naz. Orat. xhii. c. 58 (ed. Coloni, Orat. xx. 
p- 355). Ullmann’s Gregorius v. Naz. 8. 118, ff On the other hand, Conc. Chalcedon. 
van. 17: Ei dé tic éx Baothexic éfovoiac Exarvicbn réAtc, 7 adbic xawiodein, TOig TOAL- 
tikoic Kai Onuociote Timotg Kai TGV EkKAnGLacTLKGY TapolKLGy 7 Tasic dxohovbeira. 
Comp. below, note 14. 

4 The first appearance of such larger synods, Conc. Antioch. ann. 341, can. 12, see above, 
§ 92, note 12. 

» Zosimns, ii. 33. Notitia dignitatum utriusque imperii, probably written in the reign of 
Theodosius IL. (cum G. Panzirolli Comm. in Graevii Thes. antiquitt. Roman. vol. vii. p. 
1309, ss.) I.-PRAEFECTURA ORIENTIS, 1. Dioecesis Orientis (chief city Antioch); 2. Ae- 
gypti (Alexandria); 3. Asiae (Ephesus) ; 4. Ponti (Caesarea Cappadociae) ; 5. Thraciae 
(Heraclea, then Constantinople). II. Prarr. ILLYRICI ORIENTALIS, after 379 separated 
from the west, with the chief city Thessalonica. 1. Dioec. Macedoniae; 2. Daciae. III. 
Praer. Iratar, 1. Dioec. Romae (Rome); 2. Italiae (Mediolanum) ; 3. Ilyrici occident- 
alis (Sirmium); 4. Africae (Carthage). IV. Prazr. GaLLIARUM, 1. Dioec. Galliae (Au- 
“ gusta Trevirorum); 2. Hispaniae; 3. Britanniae. Over the prefectures were placed Prae- 
fecti Praetorio; over the dioceses or vicariates Vicarii; over the provinces Rectores, with 
different titles, as consulares, correctores, usually praesides. 
ibs: Epiphanius Haer. 68, § 1: Totto yao boc éoti, tov év TH ’AAckavdpeie ’Apyltené- 
okorov naone te Aiyonrov Kai On 8aidec, Mapaiérov te kai ArBine, ’Aupoviaxnie Mapare- 
Tid6¢ Te Kai WevtardAews éyerv tiv ExxAgovactixhy Stoixyow, Cf. Clausen de Synesie 
Hafh. 1831. p. 173. 

- Hieronymi ad Pammachium contra errores Joann. Hierosol. (a.p. 397) e.15: Tu qui 
regulas quaeris ecclesiasticas, et Nicaeni concilii canonibus uteris :—responde mihi: ad 
Alexandrinum episcopum Palaestina quid pertinet? Ni fallor, hoc ibi decernitur, ut Pa- 
lJaestinae Metropolis Caesarea sit, et totius Orientis Antiochia. Aut igitur ad Caesarien- 
sem Episcopum referre debueras—aut si procul expetendum judicium erat, Antiochiam 
potius literae dudgpndat, 3 





374 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D. 324-451. 


the bishop of Ephesus in the Asiatic, and that of the bishop of 
Caesarea Cappadociae, in the Pontian diocese. In the Thra- 
cian diocese, Constantinople had become the political capital 
instead of Heraclea, and as it was also the ehief city of the em- 
_ pire, the power of the bishop of Constantinople, supported by his 
influence with the emperor, and the consent of the numerous 
bishops who were always assembled at court (oivodo¢ évdnpovea),* 
soon extended far beyond the Thracian diocese; but the degree 
of power depended very much on the personal relations of the 
reigning patriarch. ‘Such was the state of things when the 
second general council (381), approved of those relations be- 
tween the bishops of one diocese (can. 2), elevated the diocesan 
- synods above the provincial synods so as to be the highest eccle- 
siastical court (can. 6), and gave the bishop of Constantinople 


the first rank after the bishop of Rome (ean. 3).° 

Thus in the east the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, 
Antioch, Ephesus, and Caesarea, had obtained an important 
elevation above the other metropolitans, for they had subjected 
to themselves the other metropolitans of their dioceses. They 
received the distinctive names: "Egapyoc, ’"Apytetioxoroc,’® and 
shortly before the council of Chalcedon, the appellation Harpr- 


§ Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, says at the council of Chalcedon, sctio iv. (ap. 
Mansi, vii. 92): SuvAbera Gvabev Kexpatyke, Tove évdquodvrac TH. peyarwviup rides 
aylwtdroue extoxorovc, qvika katpo¢ Kadéon, mepi GvaxvrrévTov TivGy exaAqovao- 
TiKOY  TpayyuaTuv ouveivat, kai diatvroty Exacta, Kai dmoKpicewe GéLody Tove 

- Oeopévove. 

9 Canon II.: Tote rep dtoixgay émuakérovc Tai¢ brepopioue éxkAnoiaic py értévat, 
unoée ouyxéew Tae éxadqoias: GAA Kata Tov¢g Kavévag TOV wev "AAeSavdpeiac éxicko- 
mov Ta év Alyoxt@ povov oixovoueiv’ tov¢ 62 The "Avatodie éxtoxorovg tiv "AvaToAiy 
uévnv d.otkeiv, gudarrouéven Tév év Toi¢ Kavdot Toic Kata Nixaiay xpecBeiwv 7H 
*Avrioyéwr éxxAnoia’ Kai Tove Tic ’Actavipg Stotxqoews ExioKérove TA KaTa THY ’Aciav 
Lovgny oikovomety’ Kai Tove THe TlovTixje Ta THe TlovTiKHe wovov' Kal Tobe tHe OpaKnc 
Tai THE OpaKikHe povov oixovoueiv. OviAatrouévov dO? TOU mpoyeypaupévou Tepi Tov 
Slotkhoewr Kavovoc, evdndov oc Ta Kal’ Exaorny éxapyiav H TI¢ Exapyxiac cbvodog d101 
khoet kata Ta év Nikaig opiopéva. Can.IIl.: Tov pévtor KovoravtivovréAews éxioxo- 
nov éyew Ta npecBeia tig Tye peta Tov Tig ‘POune éxioxoroy, did TO eivar aitiy 
véav ‘Péunv. (Cf. P. de Marca de Constantinopolitani Patriarchatas institatione (in 
Boehmer’s edition, p. 155, ss.) Can. VI.: Ei dé cvpBain ddvvarqoat toic érapyidrac 
Tpoe dt6pbwow Tov éexidepouévav EykAnuadtov TO érioKkézw, TOTE adTOveE TpocLéval 
usifove avvodw Tov Tie OtoiKqoews Exiokérwy Exeivyc, bxép THC aitiac TabTHE CVyKA- 
Aovpévov. 

10 According to the Canon Sardic. vi., every metropolitan is 6 éapyoc rij¢ éxapyiac. 
On the other hand, shortly before the council of Chalcedon, the bishop of Antioch is called 
4 Hapyoc tie dvatoAiKie dtorxqoewe (Conc. Chalcedon. actio xiv.). ’Apyexioxorog first 
applied to the bishop of Alexandria, ap. Athanas. Apol. ii. Epiphan. Heer. 68. In the acts 
of the first council of Ephesus it is very frequently given to the Loe of Rome and 
Alexandria. 

. 


L ~iea 5 t Sald sh ie eee . = LC PR Ape eee ee ee 


CHAP. IlIJ—HIERARCHY. §93..IN THE EAST. 37 


dpxnc'! was appropriated to them exclusively. But political re- 
lations and hierarchical ambition soon altered this arrangement. 
The bishops of Constantinople, favored by their position, soon 
gained an influence over the affairs of other dioceses also, 
which manifested itself decidedly in the neighboring dioceses of 
Asia and Pontus in particular.’* At first, indeed, they met 
with resistance; but since it was of moment to the emperors 
of the eastern Roman empire to make the bishop of their chief 
city powerful, as being their principal instrument in ruling the 
church and to-make him equal in rank to the bishop of the cap- 
ital of the western Roman empire, the council of Chalcedon for- 
mally invested the patriarch of Constantinople with the same 
rank as the bishop of Rome, the superintendence over those 
three dioceses,'* and the right of receiving complaints from all 


11 In the fourth century a name of respect. given to every bishop. Gregor. Nazianz. 
Orat. 20, 32, 41. Gregor. Nyss. Orat. funebr. in Meletium. See Suiceri Thes. eccl. ii. 
640. First to the higher bishops by Socrates, v. 8, then by Conc. Chalced. - 

12 Theodoret. Haer. fab. comp. iv. 12: Neotéptoc—rij¢ kata Kwvotavtivotrodiy tév 
bp0oddgav KaloAikie ’ExkAnoiag tiv xpoedpiay mioteverat, obdév d& ATTOV Kal Tie 
oixovuévyncg draons. 

13 Comp. Ziegler, l. c. 8. 184, ff. 

14 Can. Chalced. 28 (Actio xv. ap- Mansi, t. vii. 369): Tlavtayot roic tév dylwy maré 
pov Spore érouevol, Kai Tov dpting dvayvocbévta Kavéva Tov pr’ OeogiAcotétwr émt- 
oKérov yvupilovtec, Ta aita Kai queic dpilouer, kai whoiloueba repli TOV mpEcBeiwy THe 
éytwrarac éxxAnoiac KovotartivovrddAews, véag ‘Payne. Kai yap tO Op6vy tig mpec- 
_ Burépagc ‘Péuge, did 7 Bacthedery tv wéAwvy éxeivyy, of matépec eixéTwo Umodedéxkacr TA 
- gpeaBeia, kai tO abTH oxoT® Kivobyevoc oj pv’ OeogtAéotatat éExioxorot Ta loa mpeoBeia 
arévepav TO THE véac ‘Poune dytwtaTy Opdvy, ebdAdyuc Kpivavtec, Tv Bacireig Kai 
ovykanrTe tiunGeicay nédLv Kai TGv iow dxodabovcay mpecBeinv Te TpecBuTépa 
BacrAride ‘Poy (cf. lex Theodos. II. ann. 421, below, § 94, note 47), cal év Toi¢ éxxAnotac- 
tiKoic, Oc éxetvav, wsyarivecbar nxpdypact, devrépav jer’ éxeivyv bxdpyovcay’ Kai 
Gore Tove tHe IlovtiKje, Kat tHE ’Actavac, Kai Tio OpaKcKhe dotxgoews entpoToATag 
pévove, Ett 0& Kai todc év Toic BapBapiKoi¢ éxtoKdrove THY TooELpyuévany SLorkicewv 
xelpoTovetobar dnd Tov Tpoeipyuévov dyiwratov Opdvov rio Kata Kwvoraytivotrodw 
— dywatartn¢e éxxAnoiac: dndady éxdorov pytporodirov tév mposipynuévav dioikioewr, 
peta tov tie erapyiac éxickdrwy, yeipoTovodvTog Tobe Tic. éxapytac émicKdéroUe, . 
Kabac toic Geiotc Kavéot Sinyopevtat: yetporovetcbar dé, kalo eipnrat, Tove uNTpO- 
monitac Tév mpoetpnuévwr Storxioewy rapa Tod KovotavtivovréAews dpylentoKérov, 
wndicpdTwv ovpodvarv, Kata Td oc, yevouévor, Kai én’ abtiv dvadepouévuv. CE 
Edm. Richerii Hist. Concill. generall. lib..i. c. 8.§ 37, ss. Even here the Grecian 
-principle ruled that the rank of their bishops should be determined by the political 
rank of the cities (see above, note 3). Rome was always BaovAic or GactAetovca: 
Constantinople, as being Roma Nova, received forthwith the same privileges, but. was 
yet second inrank, 7 devrépa BactAebovoa (Themistii Orat. iii. p. 41). In accordance 
with this, the Council of Constantinople, 381, determined the rank of the two bishops (see. 
note 9). » But after the division of the empire, the east Roman emperors would not allow 
their chief city to stand behind in any respect (Cod. Theod. xvi. ii. 45, a.p. 421: urbs Con- 
etantinopolitana, quae Romae veteris praerogativa laetatur). Agreeably to that opinion the 
position of its bishop was determined at Chalcedon. Cf. Spanhemius de Usu et praestantia 








376 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 324-451. : 


the dioceses against metropolitans.'* Thus the exarchs of Eph- 
esus and Caesarea were put back into the middle rank between 
patriarchs and metropolitans. The bishops of Antioch endeay- 
ored likewise to draw over Cyprus into their ecclesiastical dio- 
cese, as it belonged to the political diocese of Asia; but the 
Cyprian bishops received from the Alexandrian party at the 
council of Ephesus the assurance of their independence. The 
bishops of Jerusalem, supported by the precedence which had 
been conceded to them at the council of Nice,** after having 
long endeavored in vain to shake themselves free of their metro- 
politan in Caesarea, succeeded at last in rising to the rank of 
patriarchs, by an edict of Theodosius II., and by the synod of 
Chalcedon, the three Palestines were assigned them as their ec- 
clesiastical domain.’ At the close of this period, therefore, we 
have four patriarchs in the east, viz. of Constantinople, Alex- 
andria, Antioch, Jerusalem.’* In their dioceses they were 
looked upon as ecclesiastical centers, to which the other bishops 

had to attach themselves for the preservation of unity ;’* and 


numismatum, p. 687. ~ 1d. in Juliani Orat. i. p. 30,75. Jo Massonius ad Gruteri inscrip- 

tiones, p. 1080. 

_ 48 Can. Chaleed. 9: El d2 nal xAnptxde Exot xpdyua xpo¢ Tov idiov éxicxorov, 
mpac Erepov, xapd tH cvvid@ tie Exapyiac dixalécba. ei d2? xpdg Tov THe abtHe éxap- 
yiac untporonitny érioxoroc 7 KAnpiKic GudtoBnroin, KarakauBavétw 7 Tov Eapyov 
Tic OLotKnGewc, 7} Tov Tho BactAevobane KwvorayvtivovTékewc Opévor, nai éx’ abte 
duxalécOw. Repeated for a particular case, can. 17. An ecclesiastical oversight of the 
west was bestowed on the Roman bishop by Valentinian III. 445. See below, § 94, 
note 65. 

36 Can. Nicaen. vii.: "Ezeid7 ovvijGeva Kexpatynke Kat mapddocic dpyaia, Gore tov év 
Alig éxicxoroy timdcbat, éyéro THv dKodoviiay THE Tinic, TH UNTpOTOAEL Calopévov 
tod olkeiov d&iGpatoc. Comp. Div. I. § 68, note 12. Thusjthe Concil. Constant:, a.p. 382, 
in its synodical letters (in'Theodoreti Hist. eccl. v. 9), calls this church riyv untépa dxacdv 
Tov éxxAno.dv THY év ‘TepocoAtpuorc. 

17 Ziegler, 1. c. §. 240, fF 

18 Concerning their rights see Ziegler, S. 272, ff Planck, i. 610, ff. 

19 Thus Gregorius Naz. Epist. 22 ad Caesarienses says of the church of Caesarea in 
Cappadocia (at the time in the highest rank of hierarchical dignity): "H yi7np cyeddv 
anxacdv tov ’ExkAnody qv Te dw’ apyie, Kai viv éott nai vopilerat, Kai mpoc Fv Td 
kotvov. Biémet, O¢ KévTpw KiKAOCG Teptypagduevoc. When the Egyptian bishops at the 
council of Chalcedon, after the deposition of Dioscurus, were without a head, and yet 
required to subscribe Leo’s Epist. ad Flavianum (Conc. Chalced. act. iv. ap. Mansi, vii. p. 
53, 55) they declared: Ilepi d2 rij¢ éxtotoAqe Tod dytwrdtrov—A€ovtoe, icact wévrec oi 
aywbrator Huey warépec, bret tv Gracw dvapuévouer thy yva Tod Tap’ Riv dowrdrov 
dpxvenvaxdrov.— TovTo yap Kai of éxi TIS Nixaéwv dytor marépec ovvaynyepuevor 
éxavévicav Tin, Gote dkodovbely macav THY AiyuntiaKhy dioixnow TO dpyemisKér~ 
wis peyahorbAcwc "AreEavdpeiac, Kai pndév dizxa abrod Rparrecbat Tapa Tivos Tap tr’ 
aite éxioxérav.—repl xicteds tot 6 dyGv.—rapa yvounv dpxLeTtoxérov ov Suvdpueba 
éiroypdiwar. And the council allowed them a respite, Can. 30 (Mansi, vii. ins axpig av 
xetpotovndy 6 tie ’AAetavdpéwy dpyrerioxoroc. 





‘CHAP. IIL—HIERARCHY,. § 94. IN THE WEST. 377 


constituted, along with their diocesan synod, the highest’ court 
of appeal in all ecclesiastical matters of the diocese ; while on 
the other hand they were considered as the highest representa- 
tives of the church, who had to maintain the unity of the 
church-universal by mutual communication, and without whose 
assent no measures affecting the interest of the whole church 
could be taken.” 


§ 94. 


HISTORY OF THE ROMAN PATRIARCHS,! AND OF THE HIERARCHY IN 
THE WEST. ' 
* 

Blondel’s Work, cited § 93. Cl. Salmasii libroruam de Primatu Papae pars prima, cum 
apparatu. Lugd. Batav. 1645. 4. Archibald Bower's History of the Popes, 5 vols. 4to, 
London. J. G. Rehr’s Gesch. des Papstthums. Leipz. 1801, 1802.2 Th. 8. Planck. 
i. 624, ff 


The bishop of Rome stood pre-eminent above all his brethren 
at the very commencement of this period, inasmuch as he was 
bishop of the only apostolic congregation of.the west and of the 
richest church,’ metropolitan of several provinces, viz. the ten 


20 Liberati Breviar.c.4. Quod audiens (namely, the heresy of Nestor) Cyrillus Alex- 
andrinus Episcopus, cui tunc dabatur primatus de talibus agendi, venerunt ad eum aliqui 
de populo Constantinopolitano, etc. So Eutyches at the Concil. Constantinop. (Mansi, 
vi. 817) dvayivwokouérvng tig Kabatpécewc, éxexadsoaro tiv dyiav civodov Tot tytwré- 
tov éxioxérov ‘Pounc, kai "AXefavdpetac Kai ‘lepocoAtuwr, cai Oecoadhovixne. Hence 
he complained at the second synod'of Ephesus that Flavianus had excommunicated him 
on his sole authority, xafrot udAdov dgciAwy mpd mévTwr Toic dpytepedtowy émioreiAal, 
ov¢ Kai éxexaAecdunv, namely, the bishops of Rome and Alexandria. (Mansi, vi. 641). 
Hence flattery invented for them in the fifth century the title universalis Episcopus (the 
bishop who has oversight of the entire church), which Olympius Episc. Evazensis first _ 
gives Dioscurus at the Concil. Ephes. ii. (Mansi, vi. 855). 

1 Order of succession: Sylvester L, from 314, ¢ 335; Marcus, t 336; Julius L., t 352; 
Liberius, banished 355; the Arian Felix, till 358; Liberius returns, 358, ¢ 366; Damasus, 
¢ 384; Siricius, t 398; Anastasius I, ¢ 402; Innocentius I., t 417; Zosimus, t 418; Boni- 
facius I., t 422; Caelestinus I., t 432; Sixtus IIL, t 440; Leo I. the Great, f 461. 

2 Ammianus Marcellinus, xxvii. c.3: Damasus et Ursinus supra humanum modum ad 
rapiendam Episcopatus sedem ardentes, scissis studiis asperrime conflictabantur, ad usque 
mortis yulnerumque discrimina adjumentis utriusque progressis: quae nec corrigere 
sufficiens Juventius (Praef. urbi) nec mollire, coactus vi magna secessit in suburbanum. - 
Et in concertatione superaverat Damasus, parte quae ei favebat instante. Constatque in 
basilica Sicinini, ubi ritus Christiani est conventiculum, uno die cxxxvii. reperta cadavera 
peremtoram : efferatamque diu plebem aegre postea delinitam. Neque ego abnuo, osten- 
tationem rerum considerans urbanarum, bujus rei cupidos ob impetrandum, quod appetant, 
omni contentione laterum jurgari debere: cum id adepti, futuri sint ita securi, ut ditentur 
oblationibus matronarum, procedantque vehiculis insidentes, circumspecte vestiti, epulas 


378 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A-D. 324-451. 


/ 


suburbicarian ones,’ and at the same time, on account of his 
residence in the principal city of the world. ‘The easterns, ac- 
cording to their political principle, could not but concede the 
first place among the bishops, and afterward among the patri- 
archs, to the bishop of the chief city; while the westerns esti- 


mated the dignity of the episcopal seat by another principle,‘ 


viz. the grade of its apostolic descent ; and considered the apos- 
tolic seats as the heads and centers of the whole church.° 


curantes profusas, adeo ut eorum convivia regales superent mensas. Qui esse poterant 
beati revera, si magnitudine urbis despecta quam viciis (conviciis ?) opponunt, ad imita- 
tionem Antistitum quorundam provincialium viverent: quos tenuitas edendi potandique 
parcissime, vilitas etiam indumentorum, et supercilia hamum spectantia, perpetuo numini 
verisque ejus cultoribus ut puros commendant et verecundos. Hieronymi Ep. 38 (al. 61), 
ad Pammachium: Miserabilis Praetextatus, qui designatus consul est mortuus, homo 
sacrilegus, et idoloram cultor (respecting him see § 78, note 6, § 79, note 1), solebat ludens 
beato papae Damaso dicere: “Facite me Romanae urbis episcopum, et ero protinus 
Christianus.’” Hence the arrogance of the Roman bishops as the stewards of such rich 
possessions, complained of even by Jerome Epist. 101, ad Evangelum, see Pseudo-Augus- 
tini perhaps Hilarii Diaconi (about 380) Quaest. Vet. et Nov. Test. (in August. Opp. t. iii. 
P. ii. Append.) Quaest. 101: Quia Romanae Ecclesiae ministri sunt, idcirco honorabiliores 
putantur, quam apud ceteras Ecclesias, propter magnificentiam urbis Romae, quae caput 
esse videtur omnium civitatum. Si itaque sic est, hoc debent et sacerdotibus suis vindi- 
care: quia, si ii, qui inferiores sunt, crescunt propter magnificentiam civitatis, quanto 
magis, qui potiores, sublimandi sunt? 

3 Suburbicaria loca in the versio Prisca of the 6th Nicene canon, see above § 93, note 1. 
Rufinus Hist. Eccl. x. 6, gives this canon as follows: Et ut apud Alexandriam et in urbe 
Roma vetusta consuetudo servetur, ut vel ille Aegypti, vel hic suburbicariarum ecclesi- 
arum solicitudinem gerat.—Eccles. suburbic. mean, according to Baronius and Bellarmine, 
Eccl. totius orbis; according to Perronius, Valesius, J. Morinus, Natalis Alexander, Eccl. 
occidentis; according to J. Gothofredus (Conjectura de suburbicariis regionibus et ecclesiis. 
Francof. 1617), Claud. Salmasius, J. Launojus, the two Basnages, etc., only the four prov- 
inces which were under Praef. urbi (intra centesimum ab urbe lapidem). On the other 
hand Jac. Sirmond (Censura Conjecturae anonymi script. de suburb. regg. et eccll. 1618) 
has justly asserted that the provinces subject to the Vicarius urbis, or the Dioecesis 
Romae, were, 1. Campania. 2. Tuscia et Umbria. 3. Picenum suburbicarium. 4. Sicilia. 
5. Apulia et Calabria. 6. Brattii et Lucania. 7. Samnium. 8. Sardinia. 9. Corsica. 


10. Valeria. That these constituted the Roman diocese is also evident from Cone. Sardic.. 


synodiea ad Julium P. (Mansi, iii: p. 41): Tua autem excellens prudentia disponere debet, 
ut per tua scripta, qui in Sicilia, qui in Sardinia, et in Italia sunt fratres nostri, quae acta 
sunt ef quae definita, cognoscant (cf. Syn. Arelat. Epist. Div. I. § 68, note ii.). Comp. du 
Pin. de Ant. eccl. discipl. p. 87, ss. Zeigler’s Gesch. d. Kirchl. Verfassungsformen, S. 113, 
Anm. The numerous ancient works on this subject are enumerated in Sagittarianac 
Introd. in hist. eccl. ii. 1233, ss. Fabricii Salut. lux Evangelii, p. 358, ss. : 

* See Canon Constantinop. iii. and Chalced. xxviii. above § 93, notes 9 and 13. Q 

5 The fundamental principle of Augustine is given by Pelagius, i. ad Episcopos Tusciae, 
A.D. 556 (ap. Mansi, ix. 716; also in Agobardus de comparatione utriusque regiminis, c. 2): 
Beatissimus Augustinus dominicae sententiae memor, qua fandamentum Ecclesiae in 


apostolicis sedibus collocavit, in schismate esse dicit, quicumque se a praesulis [Agob.° 


praesulum] earumdem sedium auctoritate vel communione suspenderit ; nec aliam mgni- 
festat esse ecclesiam, nisi quae in pontificibus [Agob. pontificalibus] apostolicaram sedium 
est solidata radicibus. Hence against the Donatists Augustinus Epist. 43 (al. 162), § 7: 
Non de Presbyteris aut diaconibus aut inferioris ordinis clericis, sed de collegis agebatar, 


= 
“x 





) 


e CHAP. IIL—HIERARCHY. § 94. IN THE WEST. 373 


Hence, even according to this principle, Rome stood pre-emi- 
nent, being a church founded by the two chief apostles, and the 
only apostolic community of the west.° 

The same need of security which led the bishops of the dio- 
ceses to unite with one another during the Arian controversy in 
the east, procured to bishop Juliws of Rome decisions in the 
synod of Sardica (347),’ giving him the privilege of appointing 


qui possent alioram collegarum judicio, praesertim apostolicarum ecclesiarum, causam 
suam integram reservare. Idem contra litteras Petiliani, ii. 51: Verumtamen si omnes 
per totum orbem tales essent, quales vanissime criminaris, cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae 
Romanae, in qua Petrus sedit, et in qua hodie Anastasius sedet: vel Ecclesiae Hierosoly- 
mitanae, in qua Jacobus sedit, et in qua hodie Joannes sedet, quibus nos in catholica uni- 
tate connectimur, et a quibus vos nefario furore separastis? In connection with these 
passages the following can only be rightly explained: Contra duas Epp. Pelag. ad Bonifac. 
Rom. Eccl. Episcopum, i. 2: Communis omnibus nobis, qui fungimur Episcopatus officie 
(quamvis ipse in ea praeemineas celsiore fastigio) specula pastoralis Epist. 43,§7: Ro- 
mana Ecclesia, in qua semper apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus. 

6 Synodi Sardicensis Epist. ad Julium Ep. Rom. (Mansi, i iii. 40): Hoe enim optimum 
et valde congruentissimum esse videbitur, si ad caput, i. e. ad Petri Apostoli sedem de 
singulis quibusque provinciis Domini referant sacerdotes. Blondel de la Primauté en 
léglise, p. 106, and after him Bower History of the Popes, i. 192, and Fuch’s Bibi‘oth. d. 
Kirchenversamml. ii. 128, look upon these words as interpolated. 

7 On the double originals of the canons of this council, a Greek and a Latin one, see 
Ballerini de Ant. collect. can. P. i. cap. 5. Spittler in Meusel’s Geschichtsforscher, iv. 33.— 
Can. iii. (from the Dionysius Exig. cod. can. ap. Mansi, iii. 23): Osius Episcopus dixit: 
Quod si aliquis Episcoporum judicatus fuerit in aliqua causa, et putat se bonam causam 
habere, ut iterum concilium renovetur; si vobis placet, sancti Petri Apostoli memoriam 
honoremus, ut scribatur ab his, qui causam examinarunt, Julio Romano Episcopo:, et si 
judicaverit renoyandum esse judicium, renovetur, et det judices.. Si autem probaverit, 
talem causam esse, ut- non refricentur ea quae acta sunt; quae decreverit confirmata 
erunt.. Si hoe omnibus placet? Synodus respondit: Placet. Can. iv.: Gaudentins 
Episcopus dixit: Addendum, si placet, huic sententiae, quam plenam sanctitate pro- 
tulistis; ut, cum aliquis Episcopus depositus fuerit eorum Episcoporum judicio, qui in 
vicinis locis commorantur, et proclamaverit, agendum sibi negotium in urbe Roma: alter 
_ Episcopus in ejus cathedra, post appellationem ejus qui videtur esse depositus, omnino. 
non ordinetur, nisi causa fuerit in judicio Episcopi Romani determinata. Can. vii. (in 
Graeco v.): Osius Episcopus dixit: Placuit autem, ut, si Episcopus accusatus fuerit, et 
judicaverint congregati Episcopi regionis ipsius, et de gradu suo eum dejecerint; si 
appellaverit qui dejectus est, et confugerit ad Episcopum Romanae ecelesiae, et voluerit 
se audiri: si justum putaverit, ut renovetur examen, scribere his Episcopis dignetur, qui 
in finitima et propinqua provincia sunt, ut ipsi diligenter omnia requirant, et juxta fidem veri- 
tatis definiant. Quod si is qui rogat causam suam iterum audiri, deprecatione sua moverit 
Episcoppm Romanum, ut de latere suo Presbyterum mittat, erit in potestate Episcopi, 
_quid yelit, et quid aestimet. Et si decreverit, mittendos esse, qui praesentes cum Epis- 
copis judicent, habentes ejus auctoritatem, a quo destinati sunt, erit in suo arbitrio. Si 
vero crediderit Episcopos sufficere, ut negotio terminum imponant, faciet, quod sapient- 
.issimo consilio suo judicaverit. Comp. de Marca de Concord. Sac. et Imp. lib. vii. e. 3; du 
Pin de Ant. ecel. disc. p. 103, ss. That this privilege was only granted to Julius personally, 
is shown by Richerii Hist. concill. generall. t. i. c. 3, § 4. Doubts of the authenticity of 
the canons of this council, see Mich. Geddes Diss. de Sardicensibus canon., in his Miscell. 
tract. t. ii. p. 415. Sarpi, i in Le Bret’s “Magazin fir Staaten und Kirchengesch. Th. i. (Uhm, 
1771) S. 429, ff Comp. Le Bret’s remarks on the same point, p. 435, ff. 


380 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 324-451. 


judges to hear the appeals of condemned ‘Wehotias should he look 
upon them as well founded. But when the divided choice be- 
tween Damasus and Ursicinus (366),° although Valentinian I. 
decided in favor of the former,’ gave rise to a tedious schism 
which spread into other provinces also, and to the greatest bit- 
terness between two parties; Gratian gave Damasus the right 
. of judging in the case of condemned bishops,'’ in order that the 
schismatic clergy might not be at the mercy of worldly, and for 
the most part as yet, heathen officers.’ At the same time the 
emperor, at the instance of a Roman synod (378), assured him 
of the support of the civil power as far as it might be necessary 
for the bishop’s purpose.’? Both privileges conferred on Julius 
and Damasus were transitory, as well as the relations which 
gave rise to them.’* The rights of provincial synods remained 


8 Accounts of it in favor of Damasus, Rufinus Eccl. ii. 10. Hieron. Chron. ad ann. 366. 
Socrates, iv. 29, in favor of Ursicinus Faustini et Marcellini libellus precum ad Impp. in 
Bibl. PP. Lugd. v. 637. Comp. Ammianus Marcellinus, xxvii. 3. See above, note 2. 

® See the imperial edicts in Baronius 368, no. 2; 369, no. 3. 

10 So Maximin, a heathen(Amm. Marcell. xxviii. 1), had been enraged, ita ut causa ad 
elericorum usque tormenta duceretur (Rufin. H. EK. ii. 10). 

Ul Epist. Romanii Concilii ad Gratian. et Valentin. Impp. A.D. 378 (first published in 
J. Sirmondi Appendix Cod. Theodos. Paris. 1631. 8, p. 78. Mansi, iii. 624 ap. Coustant 
among the epistles of Damasus as Ep. 6): A principio—statuistis ad redintegrandum 
corpus Ecclesiae, quod furor Ursini diversas secuerat in partes, ut auctore damnato, cae- 
terisque—a perditi conjunctione divulsis, de reliquis ecclesiarum sacerdotibus Episcopus 
Romanus haberet examen: ut et de religione religionis pontifex cum consortibus judicaret, 
nec ulla fieri videretur injuria sacerdotio, si sacerdos nulli usquam profani judicis, quod 
plerumque contingere poterat, arbitrio facile subjaceret. 

12 The synod (see the epistle referred to in note 11) proposed no new regulation: Statati 
imperialis non novitatem, sed firmitudinem postulamus. Hence the following rescript, 
like the earlier one, referred only to the peculiar relations of the time. In this rescript 
appended to the epist. already alluded to, Gr. et Val. ad Aquilinum Vicar. Urbis, we find 
these words, ce. 6: Volumus autem, ut quicunque judicio Damasi, quod ille cum consilio 
quinque vel septem habuerit Episcoporum, vel eorum, qui catholici sunt, judicio vel con- 
cilio condemnatus fuerit, si injuste voluerit ecclesiam retentare: ut qui evocatus ad sacer- 
dotale judicium per contumaciam non ivisset, aut ab illustribus viris praefectis praetorio 
Galliae atque Italie, sive a proconsulibus vel vicariis, auctoritate adhibita, ad episcopale 
jadicium remittatur, vel ad urbem Romam sub prosecutione perveniat: aut si in longin- 
quioribus partibus alicujus ferocitas talis emerserit, omnis ejus causae dictio ad Metro- 
politae in eadem provincia Episcopi deducatur examen, vel si ipse Metropolitanus est, 
Romam necessario, vel ad eos, quos Romanus Episcopus judices dederit, sine delatione 
contendat, ita tamen, ut quicunque dejecti sunt, ab ejus tantum urbis finibus segregentur, 
in quibus fuerint sacerdotes. Minus enim graviter meritos coercemus, et sacrilegam 
pertinaciam lenins quam meretur ulciscimur. Quod si vel Metropolitani Episcopi vel 
cujuscunque sacerdotis iniquitas. est suspecta, aut gratia: ad Romanum Episcopum vel « 
ad concilium quindecim Episcoporum finitimorum accersitum liceat provocare: modo ne 
post examen habitum quod definitum fuerit integretur. 

13 That the canons of the council of Sardica were never applied in practice is shown by 
de Marca de Conc. Sac. et Impp. libb. vii. c. 11 and 12. 





A eee, 





CHAP. Ifl—HIERARCHY. § 94. iN THE WEST. 381 


still fhviolate, and their decrees were considered as binding even 
by the bishop of Rome.“ 

A permanent kind of influence was opened up to the latter by , 
the custom of referring questions about apostolic doctrine and 3, 
practices to the bishop of the only apostolic and common mother- 
church,” which happened all the more readily’® as similar ques- 
tions were also referred to distinguished bishops in the east.” 


1# So Siricius replied (392) to Anysius, bishop of Phessalonica, and to the other bishops 
in Illyria, when they had asked advice from him respecting Bonosus (Siricii Ep. 9; ap. 
Coustant, erroneously given among the epistles of Ambrose, as Ep. 79, and also falsely 
ascribed to Damasus, see Coustantii monitum) : €um hujusmodi fuerit concilii Capuensis 
judicium, ut finitimi Bonoso atque ejus accusatcribus judices tribuerentur, et praecipue 
Macedones, qui cunt Episcopo Thessalonicensi de ejus factis vel cognoscerent; adverti- 
mus, quod nobis judicandi forma competere non posset. Nam si integra esset hodie 
synodus, recte de iis, quae comprehendit vestroram scriptorum series, decerneremus. 
Vestrum est igitur, qui hoc recepistis judicium, sententiam ferre de omnibus, nec refu- 
giendi vel elabendi vel accusatoribus vel accusato copiam dare. Vicem enim synodi re- 
eepistis, quos ad examinandum synodus elegit. Ambrose replied to Bonosus: Omnia 
modeste, patienter, ordine gerenda, neque contra sententiam vestram tentandum aliquid ; ut 
quod videretur vobis justitiae convenire, statueretis, quibas hanc synodus dederat auctorita- 
tem. Ideo primum est, ut ii judicent, quibus judicandi facultas est data: vos enim totius, 
ut scripsimus, synodi vice decernitis ; nos quasi ex synodi auctoritate judicare non convenit. 

15 Comp. the epistolae canonicae, Div. I. preface to § 71, as similar ones were also 
issued in this period by the Alexandrian bishops, Athanasius, Timothy, and Theophilus, : 
and by Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea. 

16 But not exclusively, ef. Conc. Carthagin. iii. (ann. 397), c. 48 (Mansi, iii 891): De 
Donatistis placuit, ut consulamus fratres et comsacerdotes nostros Siticium (bishop of 
Rome) et Simplicianum (bishop of Milan) de solis infantibus, qui baptizantur penes eos- 
dem, num—parentum illos error impediat, ne provehantur sacri altaris ministri. We have 
here at the same time a proof of the fact that they considered themselves bound by such 
opinions, as well as by a decision given by arbiters. The two bishops had answered in 
the affirmative; but when afterward the deficiency of priests in Africa made another rule 
desirable, the Conc. African. ann. 401 (Mansi, iv. 482), resolved previously to send an em- 
bassy ad transmarinas Italiae partes, ut tam sanctis fratribus et consacerdotibus nostris, 
venerabili sancto fratri Anastasio, sedis apostolicae Episcopo, quam etiam sancto fratri 
Venerio, sacerdoti Mediolanensis Ecclesiae, necessitatem ipsam ac dolorem atque inopiam 

“nostram valeat intimare (ex his enim sedibus hoe fuerat prohibitum): quo noverint com- 
muni periculo providendum, niaxime quia tanta indigentia clericorum est, etc. 

17 Tnnocentii I. Ep. 25, ad Decenfium, A.D. 416, ap. Coustant, ap. Mansi, iii. 1028: Quis 
enim nesciat, aut non advertat, id quod a principe Apostolorum Petro Romanae Ecclesiae 
traditum est, ac nunc usque custoditur, ab omnibus debere servari; nec superduci aut in- 
roduci aliquid, quod auctoritatem non habeat, aut aliunde accipere videatur exemplum ? 
Praesertim cum sit manifestum, in omnem Italiam, Gallias, Hispanias, Africam atque 
Siciliam, et insulas interjacentes, nullum instituisse Ecclesias, nisi eos, quos venerabilis 
Apostolus Pétrus aut ejus successores constituerint -sacerdotes. Aut legant, si in his 
provinciis alius Apostoloram invenitur, aut legitur docuisse. Qui si non legunt, quia nus- 
-qnam inveniunt, oportet eos hoc sequi, quod Ecclesia Romana custodit, a qua eos prin- 
cipium accepisse non dubium est; ne, dum peregrinis assertionibus student, caput institu- 
tionum videantur omittere. Ambrose, however, says of the practice of feet-washing, 

2 which did not prevail at Rome, but in Milan most probably, de Sacramentis, iii.1: In 
‘omnibus cupio sequi Ecclesiam Romanam: sed tamen et nos homines sensum habemus: 
ideo quod alibi rectius servatur, et nos recte custodimus. 








$82 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D. 324-451, ~ 


If it was usual in the latter case, so much the more wouldit &: 
cur in the former, especially as it was customary before this time 
to consider the current laws of Rome as a standard in doubtful 
cases of civil jurisprudence.** . Hence the Roman bishops took 

occasion to issue a great number of didactic letters (epistolae 
decretales),?° which soon assumed the tone of apostolic *ordinan- 
ces, and were held in very high estimation in the west, as flow- 
ing from apostolic tradition. All these circumstances’ had the 
effect of bringing about such a state of things, that in the begin- 
ning of the fifth century the Roman bishops could already lay 
claim to a certain oversight of the western church.” 


The eastern bishops, it is true, would not allow the least in- 


terference of the western in their ecclesiastical affairs. They 
gave a decided repulse to Julius 1., when, at the head of the 
western bishops, he wished to interfere on bebalf of the perse- 
cuted Athanasius.*! The fundamental principle of the mutual 


18 Digest. i. tit. 3, 1.32: De quibus causis scriptis legibus non utimur, id eustodiri opor- 
tet, quod moribus et consuetudine indactum est: et si qua in re hoe deficeret, tanc quod 
proximum et consequens ei est: si nec id quidem appareat, tune jus, quo urbs Roma 
utitur, servari oportet. 

19 The first existing decretal is Siricii Epist. ad Himerium Episc. Tarraconensem, A.D. 
385, but it refers to missa ad provincias a venerandae memoriae praedecessore meo Li- 
berio generalia decreta. The expression epist. decretalis first appears in the so-called 
decretam Gelasii de libris recipiendis et non recip. about 500. The original designation 
is decretum, afterward statutum, or constitutum decretale. Decretum, in the original 


sources of Roman law, means the decision of a college (decretum Pontificum, Senatus, ° 


ete.). So also in the Christian church it denotes the decision of a synod (ex. gr. Conc. 
Carthag. ann. 397, in fine) or of a presbytery. These decreta are also to be considered 
as such decisions of the Roman presbytery, or of Roman synods. Comp. Spittler’s Ge- 
schichte des kanon. Rechts bis auf die Zeiten des falschen Isidorus. Halle, 1778. S. 
157, ff. 


=9 lnnocentii I. Ep. 2, ad Victricium, § 6: Si majores causae in medium fnerint devo- — 


lutae, ad sedem apostolicam, sicut synodus statuit, et beata consuetudo exigit, post judi- 
cium episcopale referantur.. Ejusd. Ep. 29, ad Carthag. Concil. (among Augustine's 
Epistles, Ep: 181), §1: Patres non humana sed divina decrevere sententia, ut quidquid 
quamvis de disjanctis remotisque provinciis ageretur, non prius ducerent finiendum, nisi 
ad hajas sedis notitiam perveniret. The text to which these places refer is Epist. Syn. 
Sardic. ad Julium above, note 6. That the interpretation extends the sense very much is 
obvions, doubtless in consequence of the progress and development of new circumstances. 

2t The synod of Antioch (341) had first complained to Julius of his conduct in not regard- 
ing the sentence of the eastern church. Extracts frem this letter are foand in Sozomenns, 
iii. 8. Among other things they had said: Pépev pév yap aot grroripiay Thy ‘Payuaior 
ExxAnotar, O¢ dxootéAwy dpovTiaTiptoy, Kai evoeBeiac untporohv && dpxyic yeyevrn- 
pévnv.—od rape Tovto dé Ta devrepeta dépew Hsiovv, Ste uy peyéGer 7 wAGOet ExxAnoiac 
mheovextovoty, O¢ apety Kal mpoatpéoet vikGvrec, k.7.A. The answer to this Julii L 
Ep. ad Syn. Antiochenam (ap. Athanasius Apol. Ginter Arian. c. 21, ss. Mansi, ii. 1211. 
Coustant-Schoenemann, p. 210, ss.): After having shown the irregularity of the proceed- 
ings against Athanasius and Marcellus, he says at the conclusion: Ei ydp xai ddwe, o¢ 
Gate, vévové tu ic abrove Gudptnua, Edet KaTa Tov exKAnoLacTiKOy Kavéva, Kai BH 





Pa) > : rs 
CHAP. Ill—HIERARCHY.. § 94. IN THE WEST. 383 
J 


‘independence of the occidental and oriental church, was univer- 
sally maintained. in the east.? Still the period of the doctrinal 
controversies had a very important influence in promoting the 
power of the Roman bishop. The speculative questions which 
split the east into factions excited little interest in the west. 
On. this very account the westerns united very soon and easily 
in the opinion to be embraced, in which they chiefly followed 
the bishop of Rome, who was almost the only organ of commu- 
nication with the east,?* and by means of whom they also be- 


obtwg yeyevqobar thy Kpiow: eer ypadqvac maow jyiv, wa obtag napa xévTwv 
éptoby TO dixatov. éxioxorwot yap joav of mdoyxortec, Kal ody ai Tuxotvoas éxxAnoiat 
al xdoyouoat, GAX’ Gv abtol of ’Aréotodo dv éavtdv xabnypoavto, Acari’ d2 rept 
tie ’AAekavdpéwv éxxdAnaiag uddiota obk éypddeto tiv; } ayvoeite bre ToiTo &o¢ Hv, 
mporepov ypddecbar tyiv, rai odtac EvOev dpilec@ar Ta dixara; Ei uéev obv te Tocodtop 
qv bronrevbév eic Tov éexicxorov Tov éxei, Eder mpdc THY évraiba ExxAnciav ypagdjvat. 
Julius, therefore, did not pretend to pronounce judgment on Athanasius and Marcellus > 
alone, but in conjunction with all the bishops (comp. below, note 26). This demand grew 
out of the western notions respecting the superior dignity of the bishops of apostolic com- 
munities (see above, note 5), as those two were. See de Marca de concord. Sac. et Imp. 
lib. vii..c. 4, § 2, 6, ss. On the other hand the orientals reply in the epist. synodalis Sar. 
dicensis (Philippopoli habitae) ad Donatum (in Hilarii Fragm. lib. ii. ap. Mansi, iii, 136) : 
Hanc novitatem moliebantur inducere, quam horret vetus consuetudo ecclesiae, ut in con- 
cilio orientales Episcopi quidquid forte statuissent, ab Episcopis oceidentalibus refricare- 
tur: similiter quidquid occidentalium partium Episcopi, ab orientalibus solveretur. Sed 
‘hoc ex illo suo pravissimo sensu tractabant. Verum omnium conciliorum juste legitimique 
actorum decreta firmanda, majorum nostrorum gesta consignant.. Nam in urbe Roma sub — 
Novato et Sabellio et Valentino haereticis factum concilium, ab Orientalibus confirmatum 
est: et iterum in oriente sub Paulo a Samosatis quod statutum est, ab omnibus est signa- 
tum.—Nos vero nulli injuriam facimus, sed legis praecepta servamus. Nam injuriati et 
male tractati sumus ab iis qui volebant ecclesiae catholicae regulam sua pravitate tur- 
bare: sed ante oculos habentes timorem Dei, judicium Christi, vertm et justum conside- 
Tantes, nullius personam accepimus, neque alicui pepercimus, quo minus ecclesiasticam 
disciplinam servaremus. Unde Julium urbis Romae, Osium et Protogenem, et Gauden- 
tium et Maximinum a Treveris damnavit omne concilium secundum antiquissimam legem : 
Julium vero urbis Romae, ut priicipem et ducem malorum, qui primus januam commu- 
‘nionis sceleratis atque damnatis aperuit, ceterisque aditum fecit ad solvenda jura divina, 
defendebatque Athanasium praesumentur atque audaciter, hominem, cujus nec testes no- 
verat, nec accusatores. " 

22 Constantii Imp. Ep. ad Syn. Ariminensem, A.D. 359 (ap. Mansi, ili. 297): Non enim 
de orientalibus Episcopis in concilio vestro patitur ratio aliquid definiri. Proinde super 
his tantum, quae ad vos pertinere cognoscit gravitas vestra, tractare debebitis—Quae 
cum ita sint, adversus orientales nihil statuere vos. oportet, aut si aliquid volueritis contra _ 
eosdem praedictis absentibus definire, id quod fuerit usurpatum irrito evanescet effecta. 
At the Concil. Aquilejense, ann. 381, Palladius being accused of Arianism, replied (Mansi, 
iii. 602): Absentibus sacerdotibus nostris nos repondere non possumus. _Ambrosius Epis- 
copus dixit: Qui sunt consortes vestri? Palladius dixit: Orientales Episcopi—cCf. Leo 
Allatius de Eccles. occid. et orient. perp. consens. lib. i.c.10. Concerning the appeals ” 
from the east to Rome, see de Marca de Concord. Sac. et Imp. lib. vii. c. 6-10... Du Pin de 
Ant. ecel. discipl. p. 156, ss. 

23 Augustin. contra Cresconium, iii. 34: Ad Carthaginis Episcopam Romano: praeter- 
misso nunquam orientalis catholica scribit. ; 


384 ’ SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—AD. 324-451. 


came acquainted with its controversies. Thus in all these con- 
troversies the west stood united and steadfast, with the bishop of 
Rome at its head, in contrast with the east split into parties 


and wavering; and when matters came to a final decision, it 


‘turned the scale in the balance of parties, when merely as a 
heavy weight. .This phenomenon, which was constantly reap- 
pearing, was first manifested in the final victory of the Nicene 
faith. When these doctrines began to spread in the east like- 
wise, under Valens, it is true the new Nicene orientals could 
not entirely unite with the west, and believed that they had 
much reason to complain of the arrogance of the westerns ;** but 
yet the west was their only stay and support in opposition to all 
other parties. And though the council of Constantinople (381), 
afterward arranged the affairs of the oriental church without 
any reference to the west, and even openly took the part of the 
Miletians, whom the occidentals had rejected ;* though not long 
after the interference of the Italian bishops, in the matter of the 
rival bishop of Constantinople, Mazimus, was entirely disre- 
garded ;°° yet it could not but be seen, that in the great theolog- 
ical question of the day occidental steadfastness had obtained the 
victory over the wavering east. But whatever influence the 
west gained in the east, it gained only for the reputation of the 
Roman bishop,*’ who, at the head of the west, was the only 


2 Basil respecting the durixy dpdd¢ above, § 83, note 34. 25 See above, § 83, note 34. 

26 Epist. ii. Concilii Italiae ad Theodos. Imp. (prim. ed. in J. Sirmondi app. Cod. Theod. 
p- 105, ap. Mansi, iii: 631): Revera advertebamus, Gregorium nequaquam secundum tra- 
ditionem patram Constantinopolitanae ecclesiae sibi sacerdotium vindicare—At eo ipso 
tempore, qui generale concilium declinaverunt, Constantinopoli quae gessisse dicuntur. 
Nam quum cognovissent, ad hoc partium venisse Maximum, ut causam in synodo ageret 
stam, quod etiamsi indictum concilium non fuisset, jure et more majorum, sicut et sanctae 
memoriae Athanasius, et dudum Petrus Alexandrinae ecclesiae episcopi, et orientalium 
plerique fecerunt, ut ad ecclesiae Romanae, Italiae, et totius Occidentis confugisse 
judicium videruntur ;—praestolari utique etiam nostram super eo sententiam debuerunt. 
Non praerogitavam vindicamus examinis, sed consortium tamen debuit esse communis 
arbitrii—Nectarium autem cum nuper nostra mediocritas Constantinopoli cognoverit 
ordinatum, cohaerere communionem nostram cum orientalibus partibus non videmus.— 
Nec videmus eam posse aliter convenire, nisi aut is reddatur Constantinopoli qui prior 
est ordinatu, aut certe super duorum ordinatione sit in urbe Roma nostrum orientaliumque 
concilium. The Orientals replied to this in the Synodica Conc. Constantinop. ann. 382 ad 
Occidentales (ap. Theodoret, v. c. 9): Tlepi d2 tév olxovopiGv Tv Kata pépog év taic 
éxxAnotatc, radar6e Te, We tote, Oeopdg Kexpdryke, kai tv Gyiwv tv Nixaig rarépov 
bpoc, nal éxaoryy éxapyiav Tove tig éxapyxiag—roreiobar Tag yetpororiac. Oil¢ dKo- 
0t0ac—ti¢ ev KovoravtivovréAei—éxxAnaiag—Nexrapiov érickorov KeyxetporoviKe- 
uev.—ole Oe évbécuac Kat KavovinGs rap’ iyiv Kexpatykéat, Kal tiv tuetépay cvyxaipecv 
7 ~pakaAovpev evAdsetav. 

7 The xopvdaiog rav duTixr, § 83, note 20, comp. Theod. xvi. 1, 2, § 83, note 3z 





CHAP. IIl—HIBRARCHY. $94. IN THE W2HST. 385... 


organ of direct communication with the east. From this time 
forth there was no important ecclesiastical controversy in the 
east in which each party did not endeavor to gain over the bish- 
op of Rome, and through him the west, to its side,”* for which 
purpose both flatteries were applied, and a presumptuous. tone 
submitted to.2* At the councils, his legates were treated with 
peculiar deference. Chalcedon was the first general council 
where they presided.*° 

As the west was accustomed to estimate the dignity of the 
episcopal seat according to its apostolic derivation,*’ and since 
the decrees of the council of Sardica imparted certain privileges 
to the Roman see out of deference to the apostle Peter; so also 
the Romish bishops derived all their claims to distinction from 
the position that they were the successors of Peter.” At the same 
time, they opposed the’ opinion universally adopted in the east, 
that they and the other patriarchs owed their elevation merely 


28 Socrates, ii. 8, says that there was no Roman legate at the council of Antioch xairoz 
kavdvog exkAnoao7tKod kehevovToc, i) deiv rapa tiv yvdunv tod extoxdrov ‘Pdéune 
Tac éxxAnatac kavovitev. He borrows this sentence expressly, ii. 17, from Julii Ep. ad 
Syn. Antioch, (see above, note 21), and therefore found it in these words of his’ rotto &o¢ 
iy, mporepov ypddecbat Huiv, Kat obTwe évOev dpivec0ar ra dixata, in which Sozomen, 
iii. 10, also finds too much when he gives as its sense: elvar yap vopov lepatixdr, d¢ 
dxvpa Grogaiver Td mapa yrounv npatropeva Tod ‘Pwpyaiwy éxcoxdrov (de Marca, 
lib. x. c. 12, § 1). Still the practice of the church in the fifth century must have given 
rise to such an amplifying mode of interpretation. That there was no law in exist* 
ence such as these two writers refer to, is plain from Can. Constant. 3 (above, § 93, 
note 9), and Chalced. 28 (§ 93, note 14): the mystery is explained by the connection 
already pointed out in § 93.—Moreover, we have here a remarkable proof of the manner 
in which interpretations, very much extended and heaped upon one another, have obtained 
an influence over the constitution of the church as progressively developed and formed. 
That passage of Socrates is translated in the Historia tripartita, iv. 9, ap. 19: Non debere 
absque sententia Romani Pontificis Concilia celebrari. Hence Pseudo-Isidore has borrowed 
this sentence from him countless times, anid at length introduced it into the practice of the 
church. 

22 Comp. the Commonitorium (instructions) of the Roman legates for the council at 
Ephesus, 431, ap. Mansi, iv. 556: Ad fratrem et coépiscopum nostrum Cyrillum consilium 
vestrum omne convertite, et quicquid in ejus videritis arbitrio, facietis. Et auctoritatem 
sedis apostolicae custodiri debere mandamus.—Ad disceptationem si fuerit ventum, vos 
de eorum sententiis judicare debeatis, non subire certamen. 

30 On presidency at the general councils of this time, see de Marca, lib. v. c. 3-c. 6, ap. 
Boehmeri Observ. ad haec cap. p. 113, ss.. Launoji Epist. lib. viii. Ep. 1-6. J. T, Cramer 
on J. U. Bossuet’s Gesch. d. Welt. Th. A S. 612, f. Planck’s Geschichte der. kirchl 
Gesellschaftsverf. Bd. 1, S. 683, ff. 

31 See above, note 5. 

32 On the original signification of Vicarius Petri, see Cypriani Hp. 67, ad. Steph. Ep. 
Rom. Servandus est enim antecessorum nostroram beatorum martyram Cornelii et Lucii 
honor gloriosus: quorum memoriam cum nos honoremus, multo magis tu, frater-carissime, 
honorificare—debes, qui vicarius et successor eorum factus es. Suidas and Phavorinus 
explain Bixdpio¢g by rape : 


VOL. Leo” 





386 ' SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. 1—A.D. 324-451. © 


to the importance of the cities in which ‘they resided ;** and 
therefore they set themselves so much against the privileges of 
the bishop of Constantinople, which rested only on this ground. 
But though, on tracing back their claims, they supported the 
normal authority of their church on-the basis of its apostolic 
origin, and its parental relation to the whole western church," 
they acknowledged notwithstanding, that the peculiar privileges 
of their see did not originally belong to it, but had been granted 
by the fathers.** On the idea of Peter having been the first 
apostle they could hardly found any particular pre-eminence in 
the fourth century, since there was conceded to him only a pri- 
matus honoris, in so far as Christ had first given him alone 
those rights which he afterward transferred to all the apostles, 
and through them to all bishops equally.**° And as, according 


33 Epist. Innocentii ad Alexandrum Episc. Antioch. about 415 (ap. Coustant Ep. Innoc. 
24): Revolventes itaque auctoritatem Nicenae synodi, quae una omnium per orbem 
terraram mentem explicat sacerdotum, quae censuit de Antiochena ecclesia cunctis 
fidelibus, ne dixerim sacerdotibus, esse necessarium custodire, qua super diocesin suam 
praedictam ecclesiam, non super aliquam provinciam recognoscimus constitutam. Unde 
advertimus, non tam pro civitatis magnificentia hoc eidem attributam, quam quod prima 
primi apostoli sedes esse monstretur, ubi et nomen accepit religio christiana, et quae 
conventum Apostoloram apud se fieri celeberrimum meruit, quaeque urbis Romae sedi 
non cederet, nisi quod illa in transita meruit, ista susceptum apud se consummatumque 
gauderet. The same principle was applied in Rome itself to the Metropolitans. Ibid. 
Quod sciscitaris, utrum divisis imperiali judicio provinciis, ut duae metropoles fiant, sic 
duo metropolitani episcopi debeant nominari; non esse e re visum est, ad mobilitatem 
necessitatum mundanarum Dei ecclesiam commutari. 

“8 Innocenti I. Ep. 25, ad Decentium, see above, note 17. 

35 See above, note 20, Zosimi Ep. 2, ad Episc. Afr. § 1: His accedit apostolicae sedis 
auctoritas, cui in honorem beatissimi Petri patrum decreta peculiarem quandam sanxere - 
reverentiam. Valentiniani III. Ep. ad Theodosium Aug. a.D. 450 (among Leonis M. 
Epistt. ed. Ballerini Ep. 55): ‘O waxapidraroe éxicxoroc tig ‘Papyaiwy xéXewc, © THY 
lepwotvyay Kata wavTwv 7 apyalétng mapécye. 

36 In the passage Matth. xvi. 18, wérpa was usually explained as meaning the confes- 
sion of Peter (Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Chrysostom, etc.), or Christ (Jerome, 
Augustine), less frequently, the person of Peter (Hieron. Ep. 14, al. 57, ad Damasum), 
Cf. Casauboni Exercit. ad Baron. xv. num. 13, ss. Suicer Thes. eccl. s. v. rétpa. Du 
Pin. de Ant. eccl. discipl. diss.iv.c.1,§1. But as to St. Matthew, xvi. 19, the old view 
was universally maintained (see Div. I. § 68, note 10). Optatus Miley. lib. vii.: Praeferri 
Petrus caeteris Apostolis meruit, et claves regni caeloram communicandas caeteris solus 
accepit. Ambrosii de incarnatione Domini, c. 4: (Petrus) ubi audivit: vos autem quid 
me dicitis? statim loci non immemor sti primatum egit: primatam confessicnis utique, 
non honoris, primatum fidei, non ordinis. Hoc est dicere: nunc nemo me vincat, nunc 
meae partes sunt, debeo compensare quod tacui, etc. Augustinus de diversis Serm. 108: 
Has enim claves non homo unus, sed unitas accepit ecclesiae. Hinc ergo Petri excellentia 
praedicatur, quia ipsius universitatis et unitatis ecclesiae figuram gessit, quando ei dictum 
est: tibi trado, quod omnibus traditum est. Nam ut noveritis, ecclesiam accepisse claves 
regni caelorum, audite in alio loco, quid Dominus dicat omnibus Apostolis suis: accepite 
Sp. S. et continuo: si cui dimiseritis peccata, dimmitentur ei, si cui tenueritis, tenebuntur 











CHAP. TIL—HIERARCHY. §94. IN THE WEST. 387 


to this view, men did not scruple to attribute precisely the same 
dignity and authority to several of the other apostles,*” the bishop 


—Idem in Evang. Joannis tract. 124, § 5: Ecclesiae Petrus Apostolus propter Apostolatus 
sui primatum gerebat figurata generalitate personam.—Quando ei dictum est: Tibi dabo 
claves regni caelorum, caet., universam significabat Ecclesiam, quae in hoc saeculo diversis 
‘tentationibus— quatitur, et non cadit, quoniam fundata est super petram, unde Petrus 
nomen accepit, non enim a Petro petra, sed Petrus a petra, sicut non Christus a Christiano, 
sed Christianus a Christo vocatur. Ideo quippe ait Dominus: super hance petram aedifi- 
cabo ecclesiam meam, quia dixerat Petrus: Tu es Christus Filius Dei vivi. Super hanc 
ergo, inquit, petram, quam confessus es, aedificabo ecclesiam meam. Petra enim erat 
Christus, super quod fundamentum etiam ipse aedificatus est Petrus.—Ecclesia ergo, 
quae fundatur in Christo, claves ab eo regni caeloram accepit, in Petro, i. e. potestatem 
ligandi solvendique peccata. Hieronymus in Amos vi. 12: Petra Christus est, qui 
donavi® Apostolis suis, ut ipse qaoque petrae vocentur: Tu es Petrus, etc-——Hieronymus 
adv. Jovinian. lib. i.: At dicis: super Petram fundatur ecclesia: licit idipsum in alio loco 
super omnes Apostolos fiat, et cuncti claves regni caelorum accipiant, et ex aequo super 
eos fortitudo Ecclesiae solidetur; tamen propterea unus eligitur, ut capite constituto schis- 
matis tollatur occasio. Cf. du Pin, l. c. Diss. vi. § 1. Launoji Epistt. lib. ii. Ep. 5. Hence 


all bishops were considered the successors of Peter: Siricii Ep. 5, ad Episc. Africae § 1, 


and Tnnocentius I: Ep. 2,§2: Per Petrum et Apostolatus et Episcopatus in Christo cepit 
exordium. Innocentius I. Ep. 29 ad Concil. Carthag. § 1: A Petro ipse Episcopatus et 
tota auctoritas nominis hujus emersit. Augustini Sermo 296, § 11: Ergo commendavit 
nobis Dominus oves suas, quia Petro commendavit. Gaudentii sermo die ordinationis 
habitus: Ambrosius—tanquam Petri Apostoli successor. Cf. Baluzii not. ad Servatum 
Lupam (ed. Paris. 1664) p. 422, ss. 

37 Especially Paul: Ambrosii Sermo ii. in festo Petri et Pauli (Sermo 66, is also met 
with as Augustini de Sanctis Sermo and Maximi Taurinensis Sermo 54): Ergo beati 
Petrus et Paulus eminent inter universos Apostolos, et peculiari quadam praerogativa 
praecellunt. Verum inter ipsos, quis cui praeponatur, incertum est. Puto enim illos 
aequales esse meritis, qui aequales sunt passione. Et in quo tandem loco iidem mar- 
tyrium pertulerunt? In urbe Roma, quae principatum et caput obtinet nationum: scilicet 
ut, ubi caput superstitionis erat, illic caput quiesceret sanctitatis; et ubi gentilium prin- 
cipes habitabant, illic ecclesiaram principes morerentar. So, too, idem de Spir. Sancto, 
ii-c. 12: Nec Paulus inferior Petro, quamvis ille Ecclesiae fundamentum (Matth. xvi. 18), 
et hic sapiens architectus sciens vestigia credentium fundare populorum (1 Cor. iii. 10). 
Nee Paulus, inquam, indignus Apostolorum collegio cum primo quoque facile conferendus, 
et nulli secundus: nam qui sé imparem nescit, facit aequalem (Gal. ii. 7, ss.). Augustinus 


de Sanctis Sermo 25: Etsi Petrum priorum, tamen ambos ditavit honore uno. Gaudentius - 


Serm. de Petro et Paulo: Quem cui praeponere audeam nescio. Ambrosiaster ad Gal. ii. 
11: Nam quis eorum auderet Petro primo Apostolo, cui claves regni caeloram Dominas 


dedit, resistere; nisi alius talis, qui fiducia electionis suae sciens se non imparem, con-- 


stanter improbaret, quod ille sine consilio fecerat? In Theodoret’s Comm. in Epistt- 
Pauli, the commentary on Gal. ii. 6-14, has been erased in the Codices hitherto in use, 
without doubt, by Latinizing Greeks (see Noesselti corollarium to the praef. in Theodoreti 


eee 


Opp. t. iii. Halle edition). Out of these and similar passages arose the remarkable view » 


of Antoine Arnauld, that Peter and Paul were alike the heads of the church (see de 
Vautorité de St. Pierre et de St. Paul, résidant dans le Pape leur successeur. Paris. 1645- 
8, and de la grandeur l’église Rom. établie sur l’autorité de saint Pierre et saint Paul. 


Paris. 1645, the first work by Arnauld, the second by Martin de Barcos), a doctrine _ 


which the Romish inquisition, 1647, condemned as Jansenite. See Ittigii Diss. de origine 
controversiae cirea aequalem Petri et Pauli primatum iw his heptas dissertt., annexed to 
the Dissertt. de haeresiarchis aevi apostolici, p. 401, ss. Other apostles, however, were 
also made equal to Peter. Hieronymus in Psalm Ixvii. calls Petram et Andream Apos- 
tolorum principes. Cyrilli et Syn.-Alexandr. Epist. ad Nestorium, § 5 (in Actis Cone. 








388 SECOND PERIOD. —DIV: IL—A.D. 924451, 


of Rome could the less pretend to have inherited from Peter a pe- 
culiar spiritual power reaching beyond that of the other bishops.** 

But after the rights of the Romish bishops had become older 
in the west, and their authority had been so much increased in 
the east likewise since the end of the Arian controversy, they 
began at Rome in like proportion to enlarge the notion of Peter’s 
primacy, and to regard all the honors and rights of the Romish 
bishop as inherited from Peter,** a view which appears first to have 
been fully developed by Leo. In the east they could not concur 
with this representation, because there they were accustomed to 
attribute the primacy to the church of Jerusalem and James, at 
least during the first century.“* In Jerusalem itself they endeav- 
ored even now to establish hierarchical claims on the ground of 
its being the mother congregation of the whole church ;*! but in 


Ephes. ap. Mansi, iv. 1073): Tlérpog te nai "lwdvvne icdtiuor GAARAoLc. Concerning 
James see below, note 40. 

*8 Hieron. Epist. 101 {al. 85) ad Evangelum: Nec altera Romanae urbis ecclesia, altera 

totius orbis existimanda est. Et Galliae, et Britanniae, et Africa, et Persis, et Oriens, et 
India, et omnes barbarae nationes unum Christum adorant: unam observant regulam veri 
tatis. Si auctoritas quaeritur, orbis major est urbe. Ubicunque fuerit Episcopus, sive 
Romae, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, sive Alexandriae, sive Tanis- 
ejusdem meriti, ejusdem est et sacerdotii. Potentia divitiarum et paupertatis humilitas 
vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit. Caeteram omnes Apostolorum suc. 
cessores sunt. Sed dicis, qaomodo Romae ad. testimonium diaconi presbyter ordinatur } 
Quid mihi profers unius urbis consuetudinem? Quid paucitatem, de qua ortum est super. 
cilium, in leges ecclesiae vindicas? etc. 
_ 9 Thus the Roman legates at the Conc. Ephesin. ann. 431, ex gr. actio iii. (Mansi, iy. 
1296): Oddert dugiBorév éott, waAAov d2 maior Tolc aldow éyvécOn, rt b Gyto¢ Kai 
pakapiatarog Tétpoc, 6 éSapyoc nat xedahy tov droctédwv, 6 Ktwy tig ricteac, 6 
Geuédwog THe KabodiKng ExxAnciac, Gxd Tod Kupiov juGv "Incod Xptotov—ruc KHeic THe 
Saotheiac édéSaro* Kai ait@ dédorar éovcia Tov dequeiv nat Aveww dyaptiacg- Satic 
Ewe Tod viv Kal Get év Toi¢ abTod dtadéyotc Kal Gy, Kai dunce. 

#9 Hesychii presb. Hierosolym. (t 343) ap. Photius Cod. 275: Idec éykautdoo TOV TOD 
Xpicrod dSovdov Kai ddeAgov, TOV Tie véac ‘Tepovoadiy dpxiotparnyov, Tov TOY leptov 
hyepova, TGv arootoAwy Tov éESapyov, tiv év Kepadaig Kopug7ny, tiv év Zbxvor¢ irep- 
AGpTovTd, tov év dorpots bmepgaivorta ; Tlérpog Snunyopet, Gan’ ‘TéxwBog vouoberei, 
sal dAtyat Aélete TO TOD Sntiaroc ovvéoretiav péyebog: “éy® kpivw ph mapevoydeiv 
Toi¢ ard av éOvév” wai ébfe (Act. xv. 19). Epiphanius Haer. Ixx. c. 10: "Exonv ToTE 
Téy "Exickérwv éx repttouqe bvtwv év ‘lepovoadju Katacrabévtwr Tov xavrTa Kécuov 
robrore ovvérecbat,—iva uia tig yévntat cvpgwria, kai pia dpodoyia. Haer. Ixxviii. 
§ 7%: Kal xpGro¢ obroc ("IéxwBoc) eiAnge tiv Kabédpav tij¢ éxtoxorijc, @ memiorevKe 
Kbpiog Tov Opévov adtod éxi rie yg mpOTw, be Kai éxadeiro 4 dde2¢gd¢ Tod Kvpiov. 
Chrysostomus Hom. 23, in Acta Apost. cap. Xv. praises James in allowing Peter and Paul 
to speak first, though himself r7v dpyyv éyxexerptopévoc.. In the xpocddvnaic txtp trav 
xvoT@y Constitatt. Apostol. viii. c. 10, the prayers for the three most distinguished bishops 
follow each other in this order: ‘Yxép tod éxioxérov judy "laxéBov kai tv mapoikidy 
avtod denPapev trip tov émioxémov HuGy KAjuevtoc kai tov rapocKidv abrod denbi- 
‘Mev’ brép Tov éxicKxérov Huay Evodiov Kai tv rapoiKiav aitod denbduev. 

* Javenalis Epise. Hieros. in Conc. Ephes. act. iv. (ap. Mansi, iv. 1312): "Eypqv pep 


eT 
a 


SCE Slat a 





fe 


: CHAP. IIL—HIERARCHY. § 94. IN THE WEST. 389 


the external insignificance of this see little stress could be laid 
on these claims, especially since the authority of churches gen- 
erally, in the east, was not determined according to their origi- 
nal importance, but the political rank of the cities in which they 
existed.” 

High as was the dignity which the Roman bishops enjoyed 
in the west, their influence was yet very different in the differ- 
ent provinces. They had the full rights of patriarchs only in 
the diocese of Rome. In the dioecesis Italiae, the bishop of Mi- 
fan exercised quite independently of them a hierarchical power 
similar to that of the patriarchs ; in addition to whom the bishop 
of Aquileia also,** and at a later period the bishop of Ravenna,“ 
raised themselves to the rank of more independent hierarchs. In 
the mean time, the Roman bishops, by a skillful use of opportuni- 
ties, succeeded in attaching Lust JUyria to their patriarchate. 
During the Arian disputes, Illyria had belonged to the western 
empire, and the Illyrian chureh had continued true to the Ni- 
eene council,’* attaching itself to the bishop of Rome for its de- 
fense, as did the whole west. When, therefore, Gratian, a.p. 
379, divided Illyria, and annexed Jilyricum orientale to the 
eastern empire, the bishops of East Illyria, who had for so long 
a time maintained no communion with the east, could not have 
much inclination to attach themselves ecclesiastically to the 


‘lwdvenv tov ebAaBécratey éxicxorov ’Avrioysiac—rov dmoctoAKkov Opdvov cvvedpedt-— 
ovra hiv tig weyaAne ‘Poune Tipjoa, Kai TH GxooToALK® Tig ‘lepocoAtpwv dyiag Tob 
God éxxAnoiag irakotcat, rap’ @ udduota Bog aitév Tév’Avtioxéwy Opdvov é§ dro- 
otoAikic GxoAovbiac Kai mapadooeas iGivecOa Kal rap’ abTo dixdlecba. i? the editions 
Tipoat is erroneously placed after dxaxoicat. ) 

42 Even Dioscurus sought to elevate the see of Alexandria by appealing te St. Mark. 


“Theodoretus Ep. 86, ad Flavianum Ep. Constantinop.: "Avw kai xdtw rod yaxapiov 


Mdpkov tov Opsvov rpoBardAetat* kai tadta caddie eidde, O¢ Tod peydAov Térpov rov 
Opévov 7’ AvTi0xéwy peyardroric eye, b¢ Kai TOD waxapiov Mdpkov diddoKadog Fv; Kai 
Tow xopod TOv’ArooTéAwy mpGTo¢ Kai Kopvdaiog. *AAA’ juci¢ Tod wév Opdvov 76 bWog 
émtataueba, éavtov¢ 2 Kal yvdoKkouev Kal wetpoduev. tiv yap axootoAiKHy Tame 
vodpoabryy dvabev uepabjKrapev. 

43 J. F. B. M. de Rubeis Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquilejensis. Argentinae. 1740. fol. c. 


“19 et 20. Ziegler’s Gesch. d. Kirchl. Verfassungsformen, S. 321, ss. 


44 Since, Honorius, fleeing from the Goths, had transferred his residence to Ravenna, 
Zosimus, v. 30. 

45 See especially Baluzius in de Marca de Concord. Sac. et Imp: v.€..19, ¢..29, and 
Boehmer’s Appendix observ. 15, ss. 

4° When Theodosius was baptized (380) by Ascholius, bishop of Thessalonica, Sonam. 
vii. 4: "HoOy d& (Ocodécr0¢) Kai "lAAvpioig Grace iy ueTacxovot Tod ’Apsiov dégHo- 
rvvOavéuevoc 62 Tepi Tov GAAwy eOvar, péxpr uev Maxeddvav éyva Tac ’ExxAnoiag 
ayovociv,—évtep0er O& Ta mpdc &w cTacLalely, K.7. A. 








390" SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 324-451. 


east, during the strife of parties by which it was then distin- 
guished; while the bishop of Thessalonica, the ecclesiastical 
head of East Illyria, must have been averse to a union of this 
kind, which would have made him subject to a superior so near, 
viz. the bishop of Constantinople. 

Under these circumstances, it was easy for the Roman bish- 
ops to persuade the bishop of 'Thessalonica to exereise the patri- 
archal rights, in the new prefecture of East Illyria, as vicar of 
the Roman see. Damasus and Siricius made this arrange- 
ment; Innocent I. looked upon it as already fixed.’ The East 
Hilyrian bishops, indeed, who by this means were entirely at the 
mercy of the bishop of Thessalonica, remote as they were frony 
Rome, soon found cause of dissatisfaction ; but their attempt to 
procure the ecclesiastical union of their province with the patri- 
archate of Constantinople by an imperial law was frustrated.*® 

Another favorable opportunity for extending their power 
presented itself to the Roman bishops in Gaul.*® When metro- 
politan relations began to be established here at the end of the 


47 Innocentii I. Ep. 13, ad Rufam Ep. Thessal.: Divinitus ergo haec procurrens gratia: 
ita longis intervallis disterminatis a me ecclesiis discat (leg. dictat) consulendum, ut pru- 
dentiae gravitatique tuae committendam.curam causasque, si quae exoriantur per Achajae 
Thessaliae, Epiri veteris, Epiri novae, et Cretae; Daciae Mediterraneae, Daciae Ripensis, 
Moesiae, Dardaniae et Praevali Ecclesias, Christo Domino annuente censeant (leg. cen- 
seam).—non primitus haec ita statuentes, sed praecessores nostros apostolicos imitati. qui 
beatissimis Ascholio et Anysio injungi pro eoram meritis ista voluerunt—Arripe itaque, 
dilectissime frater, nostra vice per suprascriptas Ecclesias, salvo earum primatu, curam: 
et inter ipsos primatus primus, quidquid eos ad nos necesse fuerit mittere, non sine tuo 
postulent arbitratu. Ita enim aut per tuaam experientiam quidquid illud est finietur: aut 
tuo consilio ad nos usque perveniendum esse mandamus. The relation was similar to the 
political ond of a vicar to his praefectus praetorio (see § 93, note 5). 

48 Cod. Theod. xvi. ii. 45, and Cod. Justin. I. ii. 6: Theodosius Aug. Philippo Pf. P: 
Tilyrici (a.D. 421). Omni innovatione cessante, vetustatem et canones pristinos ecclesias- 
ticos, qui nunc usque tenuerunt, per omnes Illyrici provincias servari praecipimus: ut si 
quid dubietatis emerserit, id oporteat non absque scientia viri reverendissimi sacrosanctae 
legis antistitis urbis Constantinopolitanae, quae Romae veteris praerogativa laetatur, 
conventui sacerdotali sanctoque judicio reservari. At the intercession of Honorius (see 
Honorii Ep. ad Theodos. Aug. among the letters of Boniface I. ap. Coustant Ep. 10) Theo- 


dosius II. soon after repealed the law (Theodosii Ep. ad Honorium, ibid. Ep. 11): Omni: 


supplicantium Episcoporum per Illyricum: subreptione remota, statuimus observari quod 
prisca apostolica disciplina et canones veteres eloquuntur. It is remarkable that this law 
is found in two codices, but not its repeal. The Roman bishops were compelled continu- 
ally to exhort the Illyrian bishops to obey the bishop of Thessalonica, cf. Bonifacii I. Ep. 
14 ad Episcopos per Thessal., Hp. 15 ad Episce. per Macedoniam, Achajam, etc. Sixti IIT. 
Ep. 7 ad Perigenem Episc. Corinth. Ep. 8 ad Synod. Thessalonicae congregandam. 
Leonis I. Ep. 5 ad Episcc. Metropolitanos per Illyricum constitutos, Ep. 13 ad eosdem. 
(Leo’s Leben, v. Perthel. S. 21.) - 

#8 Concerning the Vicariatus Arelatensis see de Marca (Baluzius) l. c. lib. v. c. 30-c.47 


a a sat GO 
stati ta. | Aph tea 
RS ae : 





CHAP. IIl.—HIERARCHY. § 94. IN THE WEST. 391 


fourth century, the political principle of the orientals had ob- 


tained at first in the distribution of them.*! The bishop of 


Arles long endeavored in vain to make the principle of apos- 
tolic origin tell in his favor in opposition to the oriental princi- 
ple. At last he applied to Rome. Zosimus, seizing on the op- 
portunity (417), declared Patroclus bishop of Arles his vicar 
in Gaul, and invested him with metropolitan rights in Viennen- 
sis, Narbonensis Prima and Secunda.*” The offended metropoli- 
tans of Vienne, Narbo, and Massilia, refused, however, to accede 
to. this arrangement in spite of all threats ; and when, soon after, 
the bishop of Arles (418) began to strive after ecclesiastical 


dominion over the seven provinces (Septimana),°’ of which his 


city had been made the chief, the Roman bishops also found it 
their interest to take part with the old metropolitans. Hilary 


50, Compare the Ballerini Observatt. ad Quesnelli diss. v. P. ii. in Ballerinus’s edition of 
the Opp. Leonis, tom. ji. p.1030,ss. Ziegler’s Gesch. d. Kirch]. Verfassungsformen, 8. 79, ff. 

51 Cone. Tuaurinense, ann. 491 (according to Baronius erroneously ann. 397), can. 2: 
Iilud deinde inter Episcopos urbium Arelatensis et Viennensis, qui de primatus apud nos 
honore. certabant, a S. Synodo definitum est, ut qui ex eis approbaverit suam civitatem 
esse metropolim, is totius provincia honorem primatus obtineat. 

52 Zosimi Epist. 1. ad Episcopp. Galliae: Placuit apostolicae sedi, ut si quis ex quali- 
bet Galliarum parte, sub quolibet ecclesiastico gradu, ad nos Romam venire contendit, vel 
alio terrarum ire disponit, non aliter proficiscatur, nisi metropolitani Arelatensis Episcopi 
formatas acceperit——Quisquis igitur—praetermissa supradicti formata—ad nos venerit, 
sciat se omnino suscipi non posse—Jussimus autem praecipuam, sicuti semper habuit, 
metropolitanus Episcopus Arelatensium civitatis in ordinandis sacerdotibus teneat auc- 
toritatem. Viennensem, Narbonensem primam et Narbonensem secundam provincias 
ad pontificium suum revocet. Quisquis vero posthac contra apostolicae sedis statuta et 
praecepta majorum, omisso metropolitano Episcopo, in provinciis supradictis qaemquem 
ordinare praesumserit, vel is qui ordinari se illicite. siverit, uterque sacerdotio se_carere 
cognoscat.—Sane quoniam metropolitanae Arelatensium urbi vetus privilegium minime 
derogandum est, ad quam primum ex hac sede Trophimus summus antistes, ex cujus 
fonte totae Galliae fidei rivulos acceperunt, directus est; idcirco quascunque paroecias in 
quibuslibet territoriis, etiam extra provincias suas, ut antiquitus habuit, intemerata auc- 
toritate possideat. Ad cujus notitiam, si quid illic negotioram emerserit, referri censemus 
nisi magnitudo causae etiam nostrum exquirat examen. Ejusd. Ep. 5. ad Epise. Prov. 
Vienn. et Narbon. rejects the decision of the Syn. Taurin. as surreptitiously obtained: 
Indecens ausus et in ipso vestibulo resecandus, hoc ab Episcopis ob certas causas con- 
cilium agifantibus extorquere, quod contra patrum et S. Trophimi reverentiam, qui primus 
metropolitanus Arelatensis civitatis ex hac sede directus est, concedere vel mutare ne 
hujus quidem sedis possit auctoritas.: Against this assertion of the rights belonging to 
the church of Arles, see below, Leo, I. note 56. 

58 After Treves had been plundered by the Germans, Arelate became the residence of 
Praefectus praetorio of Gaul, whose dominion extended from this place to seven provinces. 
See Honorii constitutio ap. Sirmond. in notis ad Sidonium Apoll. and in Codicis Theo- 
dosiani, libb. v. priores ed. C. F. Chr. Wenck. Lips. 1825. 8. p. 378, ss. Cf. p. 371, ss. 


5¢ ‘When the clergy and people of Lutuba complained to Boniface I. that Patroclus had ~ 


forced a bishop upon them, he wrote Epist. 12 ad Hilarium Ep. Narbon. a.p. 422: Quod 
nequaquam possumus ferre patienter sanctionum diligentes esse custodes. Nulli etenim 


392 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 324-451. 


bishop of Arles finally forgot his duty as vicar so far that he 
~ would not allow the sentence of deposition pronounced by him 


and his synod against Celidoniws bishop of Vesontio to be 


submitted to a new examination in Rome. On this account 
Leo the Great (445) withdrew from him all the privileges 
-which had been granted by the Roman see,** though he could 


videtar incognita synodi constitutio Nicaenae, quae ita praecepit, per unamquamque 
provinciam jus Metropolitanos singulos habere debere, nec cuiquam duas esse subjectas. 
Unde, frater carissime, si ita res sunt, et ecclesiam supradictam provinciae tuae limes 
includit, nostra auctoritate commonitus, quod quidem facere sponte deberes, desideriis 
supplicantium et voluntate respecta, ad eundem locum, in quo ordinatio talis celebrata 
dicitur, metropolitani jure munitus, et praeceptionibus nostris fretus, accede: intelligeus 
arbitrio tuo secundum regulas patrum quaecunque facienda sunt a nobis esse concessa; 
ita ut peractis omnibus, apostolicae sedi quidquid statueris te referente clarescat, cui 
totius provinciae liquet esse mandatam. Nemo ergo eorum [patrum] terminos audax 
temerator excedat—Cesset hujusmodi pressa nostra auctoritate praesamtio eorum, qui 
ultra licitum suae limitem dignitatis extendunt. So too Caelestinus Ep.4, ad Episc. prov. 
Vienn. et Narbon. A.D. 428. 

55 Vita Hilarii Arelat. by Honoratus Ep. Massil. (about 490, ap. Surius and Acta S88. 
ad. d. 5. Maji) § 22: Hilary went himself to Rome and reminded Leo, aliquos (Celidonius, 
etc.) apud Gallias publicam merito excepisse sententiam, et in urbe sacris altaribus in- 
teresse. Rogat atque constringit, ut si suggestionem suam libenter excepit, secreto 
jubeat emendari; se ad officia, non ad causam venisse protestandi ordine, non accu 
Sandi, quae sunt acta suggerrere: porro autem,si aliud velit, non futurum esse molestum 


Et quia tantorum virorum, praesertim jam ad supernam gratiam vocatorum, nec in narra- . 


tione audeo judicia ventilare ; hoc breviter tetigisse sufficiet, quod solus tantos sustinuit, 
quod nequaquam minantes expavit, quod inquirentes edocuit, quod altercantes vicit, quod 
potentibus non cessit, quod in discrimine vitae positus communioni ejus, quem cum tantis 
viris damnaverat, conjungi nullatenus acquievit. Auxiliaris, then Praefectus, wrote to 
him: Sanctos Nectarium et Constantium sacerdotes ex beatitudinis tuae parte venientes 
digna admiratione suscepi. Cum his saepius sum locutus de virtute animi atque con- 
stantia, contemptuque rerum humanarum, quo inter fragilitates nostras semper beatus 
es—Locutus sum etiam cum 8. Papa Leone. Hoc loco, credo, aliquantum animo per- 
horrescis. Sed cum propositi tui tenax sis, et semper aequalis, nullogue commotionis 
felle rapiaris, sicut nullis extolleris illecebris gaudiorum, ego nec minimum quidem factum 
Beatitudinis tuae arrogantiae memini contagione fuscari. Sed impatienter ferunt homines, 
si sic logquamur, quomodo nobis conscii sumus. Aures praeterea Romanorum quadam 
teneritudine plus trahuntur: in quam si se Sanctitas tua subinde demittat, plurimum tu 
nihil perditurus, acquiris. Da mihi hoc, et exiguas nubes parvae mutationis serenitate 
compesce. See Papst Leo I. Streit mit d. B. v. Arles, von E. G. Perthel in Illgen’s 
Zeitschr. f. d. hist. Theol. 1843, ii. 27. 

56 Leonis M. Ep. 10 (al. 89) ad Episc. provinciae Viennensis, c. 4: Quid sibi Hilarius 
quaerit in aliena provincia: et id quod nullus decessorum ipsius ante Patroclum habuit, 
quid usurpat? cum et ipsum, quod Patroclo a sede apostolica temporaliter videbatur esse 
concessum, postmodum sit sententia meliore sublatum? Cap. 7: Suis unaquaeque pro 
vincia sit contenta Conciliis, nec ultra Hilarius audeat conventus indicere synodales, et 
sacerdotum Domini judicia se interserendo turbare. Qui non tantum noverit se ab alieno 
jure depulsum, sed etiam Viennensis provinciae, quam male usurpaverat, potestate 
privatum. Dignum est enim, fratres, antiquitatis statuta reparari, cum is, qui sibi ordi- 
nationem provinciae indebitae vindicabat, talis in praesenti etiam probatus fuerit extitisse, 


ut—suae tantum civitatis illi sacerdotium, pro sedis apostolicae pietate, praeceptio nostra * 


servaverit. , 


eR Bie rk 





CHAP. II.—HIERARCHY. § 94. IN THE WEST. 393. 


not prevent Hilary and his successors from asserting their pri- 
macy.°” 

The Roman bishops were least successful in obtaining influ- 
ence in Africa, where the ecclesiastical relations had long been 
firmly fixed, and there was on this account an aversion to the 
new development of the hierarchy. Their ecclesiastical legis- 
lation, too, had been all along cuMivated with an evident predi- 
lection.*® As early as the Pelagian controversy, Zosimus had 
learned by experience how little his decision was respected in 
Africa (§ 87, notes 12-16). It is true, he procured restoration 
to his office for the presbyter Apiarius who had been then de- 
posed by appealing to the canons of the Sardican council as W- 
cene ; but his successor, Boniface I. (418-423), was reminded 


on this account of the humility suitable to him under such cir- 
cumstances.°* But when Caelestinus I. (823-432) wished to 
have the twice-deposed Apiarius restored,®' the Africans in the 


57 See de Marca, 1. c. lib. v. c. 33. Perthel, 1. c. S. 36, ff. 

- 58 Conc. Carthag. iii. ann. 398 can. 26 (Cod. Canonum Eccl. Afric. c. 39): Ut primae 

sedis episcopus non appelletur princeps sacerdotum, aut summus sacerdos, aut aliquid 

hujusmodi, sed tantum primae sedis episcopus. 
‘ 59 On the so called Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae (Voélli et Justelli Bibl. jur. 
can. vet. i. 320, H. Th. Bruns Biblioth. ecclesiast. i. i. 155) compiled by Dionysius Exiguus 
from the acts of the Syn. Carthag. ann. 419, by which the decrees of former councils were 
confirmed, and new ones added: Gallandii de Vetustis canonum collectionibus sylloge, and 
the treatise of Coustant, c. 6 (ed. Mogunt. i. 103), P. de Marca, c. 4 (ibid. p. 180) Ballerini, 
P. ii. c. 3 (ibid. p. 334). 

60 Cone. Afric. Ep. ad Bonifac. a.p. 419 (ap. Coustant Epist. Bonif. ii.): § 5. Haec 
(namely, the decrees of the Sardican council given out as Nicene decrees) utique usque 
ad adventam verissimorum exemplarium Nicaeni Concilii inserta gestis sunt. Quae si 
ibi—continerentur, eoque ordine vel apud vos in Italia custodirentur; nullo modo nos talia, 
qualia commemorare jam nolumus, vel tolerare cogeremur, vel intolerabilia pateremur. 
Sed credimus—quod tua Sanctitate Romanae ecclesiae praesidente non sumus jam istum 
typhum passuri; et servabuntur erga nos, quae nobis etiam non disserentibus custodiri 
debeant cum fraterna caritate, quae secundum sapientiam atque justitiam, quam tibi 
donavit Altissimus, etiam ipse perspicis esse servanda, nisi forte aliter se habeant canones 
Concilii Nicaeni. This mistake was caused by the form of the collection of canons then 
in use, in which those of later synods were appended to the Nicene without distinction. 
Quesnell has published such a collection annexed to the Opp. Leonis; also Mansi, vi. 
1183. Hence later canons are often cited as Nicene. See Ballerini de Ant. collect. cann. - 
P. ii. c. 1, §.3 (in Gallandii Syl. ed. Mogunt. i. 311). Spittler in Meusel’s “Geschichts- 
forscher, iv. 72., The same author’s Gesch. d. kan. Rechts, S. 106. 

8 Cone. Afric. ad Caelestinum, A.D. 425 (ap. Coustant Epist. Caelest. ii.): § 2. Praefato 
itaque debitae salutationis officio, impendio deprecamur, ut deinceps ad vestras aures 
hine venientes non facilius admittatis, nec a nobis excommunicatos in communionem ultra 
velitis excipere: quia hoc etiam Nicaeno concilio definitum facile advertat Venerabilitas 
tua. Nam et si de inferioribus clericis vel de laicis videtur ibi praecaveri, quanto magis 
hoc de episcopis voluit observari? ne in sua provincia a communione suspensi, a tua 
Sanctitate praepropere vel indebite videantur communioni restitui. § 3. Presbyteroram 


394 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D. 324-451. © 


_most express terms forbade all interference, and interdicted 
appeals to foreign bishops.® 

At the close of this period Leo I. the Great was bishop of 
Rome (440—461),°? who endeavored theoretically to establish 
the rights of the Romish see by enlarged ideas of the primacy 
of Peter,®* and the inheritance derived from that source,® anid 


quoque et sequentium clericorum improba refugia, sicuti te dignum est, repellat Sanctitas 
tua: quia et nulla patrum definitione hoc ecclesiae derogatum est Africanae, et decreta 
Nicaena sive inferioris gradus clericos, sive ipsos episcopos suis metropolitanis apertissime 
commiserunt. Prudentissime enim justissimeque viderunt, quaecunque negotia in suis 
locis, ubi orta sunt, finienda, nec unicuique provinciae gratiam ‘sancti Spiritus defuturam, 
qua aequitas a Christi sacerdotibus et prudenter videatur, et constantissime teneatur: 
maxime quia unicuique concessum est, si judicio offensus fuerit cognitorum, ad concilia 
suae provinciae vel etiam universale provocare. Nisi forte quisquam est qui credat, 
unicuilibet posse Deum nostrum examinis inspirare justitiam, et innumerabilibus congre- 
gatis in concilium sacerdotibus denegare. Aut quomodo ipsum transmarinum judicium 
ratum erit, ad quod testium necessariae personae vel propter sexus vel propter senectutis 
infirmitatem, vel multis aliis intercurrentibus impedimentis, adduci non poterunt? §4.Nam 
ut aliqui tanquam a tuae Sanctitatis latere mittantur, in nulla invenimus patrum synodo 
constitutum ; quia illud quod pridem per eundem coépiscopum nostrum Faustinum tan- 
quam ex parte Nicaeni concilii exinde transmisistis, in conciliis verioribus, quae accipiuntur 
Nicaena, a 8. Cyrillo coépiscopo nostro Alexandrinae ecclesiae, et a venerabili Attico Con- 
stantinopolitano antistite ex authentico missis—non potuimus reperire. § 5. Executores 
etiam clericos vestros quibusque petentibus nolite mittere, nolite concedere; ne famosum 
typhum saeculi in ecclesiam Christi—videamur inducere. Cf. du Pin de Ant. disc. eccl. 
diss. ii. § 3, p. 174, ss. 


® Concil. Milevitani ii. (ann 416) can. 22 (the canon of a later council, also contained ‘ 


in Cod. can. eccl. Afric. cap. 28 and 125): Item placuit, ut presbyteri, diaconi, vel caeteri 
inferiores clerici, in causis quas habuerint, si de judiciis episcoporum suorum questi faerint 
vicini episcopi eos audiant, et inter eos quidquid est, finiant, adhibiti ab eis ex consensu 
episcoporum suorum. Quod si et ab iis provocandum putaverint, non provocent nisi ad 
Africani concilia, vel-ad primates provinciarum suarum (for this Cod. Can. c. 28: non pro- 
vocent ad transmarina judicia, sed ad primates suarum provinciarum, aut ad universale 
eoncilium, sicut et de Episcopis saepe constitutam est). Ad transmarina autem qui pu- 
taverit appellandum, a nullo intra Africamin communionem suscipiatur. For the genuine- 
ness of the addition: sicut et de Episcopis saepe constitutum est, see de Marca, lib. vii.c. 
16, § 5. Similar decrees were also issued by other African councils. Comp. the citations 
of them in Conc. Carthag. ann. 325 (Mansi, viii. p. 644): Conc. decimo, ut episcopi ad 
transmerina pergere non facile debeant; Conc. undecimo, qui in Africa non communicat, si 
ausus fuerit in transmarinis, damnetar; Conc. sextodecimo, ad transmarina qui putaverit, 
ete. (same as the above Can. Milev.).; Conc. vigesimo, ut nullus ad transmarina audeat 
appellare. 

63 Leo d. G. u. 8. Zeit von » W..A. Arendt, Mainz. 1835.8 (a Catholic apologetic work).. 
Papst Leo’s Leben u. Lebren y. Ed. Perthel. Jena. 1843. 8. 

6 Comp. the characteristic expression of Auxiliaris regarding the teneritudo aurium of 
the Romans at this time, note 55, above. 

65 Leonis Ep. 10 (al. 89), ad Episc. provinciae Viennensis: Divinae cultum religionis 
—ita Dominus noster—instituit, ut veritas—per apostolicam tubam in salutem universitatis 
exiret—Sed hujus muneris sacramentum ita Dominus ad omnium Apostolorum officium 
pertinere voluit, ut in beatissimo Petro, Apostoloram omnium summo, principaliter collo- 
caret; et ab ipso, quasi quodam capite, dona sua velit in corpus omne manare: ut exsor- 
tem se mysterii intelligeret esse divini, qui ausus fuisset a Petri soliditate recedere. Hunce 
enim in consortium individuae unitatis assumtum, id quod ipse erat, voluit nominari, dicen- 


oe eee 





CHAP. IIl.-HIERARCHY. § 94. IN THE WEST. 395 


also considerably extended the power of that see, both by his 
own personal qualities and good fortune. The controversy with 
_ L{Tilary, bishop of Axles, led him to obtain a law from Valentini- 
an ITT. (445) by which the Romish bishop became the supreme 


head of the whole western church.“ The catholic bishops of 


Africa, now oppressed by the Arian Vandals, attached them- 
selves the more closely on this account to the Roman see, and 
allowed Leo to act as a patriarch in their dioceses without op- 
position.*7 At the council of Chalcedon, Leo, whose legates 
had the presidency there, hoped to make good his claims as 
head of the whole church; but he met with much opposition 
among the orientals,®** which at last manifested itself decidedly 


do: Tu es Petrus, etc., ut aeterni templi aedificatio, mirabili munere gratiae Dei, in 
Petri soliditate consisteret.. Hence Epist. ad Anastasium Epise. Thessalonic. (Quesn. Ep- 
12, Baller. 14), c.1: Curam, quam universis ecclesiis principaliter ex divina institutione 
debemus. ©. 11: Magna ordinatione provisum est, ne omnes (episcopi) sibi omnia vindica- 
rent; sed essent in singulis provineiis singuli, quorum inter fratres haberetur prima sen- 
tentia, et rursus quidam, in majoribus urbibus constituti, sollicitadinem susciperent ampli- 
erem, per quos ad unam Petri sedem universalis ecclesiae cura conflueret, et nihil usquam 


a suo capite dissideret. Epist. ad Afrieanos (Quesn. 1, Baller. 12): Solicitudo, quam | 


universae ecclesiae ex divina institutione dependimus. Leo’s Leben, v. Perthel, S. 226. 

66 Appended to the edition of the Cod. Fheodos. by Gothofredus and Ritter Novell 

. Theodosii, tit. 24, by Hanell Novell. Valentin. iii. tit. 16, in Leonis Opp. ed. Baller. Epist- 

11: Cum igitur sedis apostolicae primatum sancti Petri meritum, qui princeps est episco- 
palis coronae, et Romanae dignitas civitatis, sacrae etiam synodi firmarit auctoritas, ne 
quid praeter auctoritatem sedis istius illicita praesumtio attentare nitatur. Tunc enim 
demum ecclesiaram pax ubique servabitur, si rectorem suum agnoseat universitas— 
§ 3. Nec hoe solam, quod est maximi criminis, submovemus, verum ne levis saltem inter 
ecclesias turba nascatur, vel in aliquo minui religionis disciplina videatar, hac perenui 
sanctione censemus, ne quid tam episcopis Gallicanis, quam aliarum provineiarum contra 
eonsuetudinem yeterem liceat sine viri venerabilis papae urbis aeternae auctoritate 
tentare. Sed hoc illis omnibusque pro lege sit, quidquid sanxit vel sanxerit apostolicae 
sedis auctoritas, ita aut, quisquis episcoporum ad judicium Romani antistitis evocatus 
venire neglexerit, per moderatorem ejasdem provinciae adesse cogatur, per omnia servatis, 
quae divi parentes nostri Romanae ecclesiae detulerunt. ; 

67 Cf. Leonis Epistol. ad Episcop. African: (Quesn. i. Baller. xii). Leo’s Leben, v. 
Perthel, S. 30. 

6s In the very beginning of the council the legates had to declare (actio, i. ap. Mansi, vi: 
579): Beatissime atque apostolici viri Papae urbis Romae, quae est caput omnium 
Ecclesiarum, praecepta habemus prae manibus, quibus praecipere dignatus est ejus Apos- 
tolatus, ut Dioscurus, Alexandrinorum Archiepiscopus, non sedeat in Concilio, sed audien- 


dus intromittatur. Hoc nos observare necesse est. Si ergo praecipit vestra magnificentia, 
aut ille egrediatur, aut nos eximus. Judicii sui necesse est eum dare rationem, quiacum . 


personam judicandi non haberet, praesumpsit, et synodum ausus est facere (the Robber 


' synod) sine auctoritate sedis apostolicae, qaod nunquam licuit, nunquam factum est. They | - 


were, however, foiled in this proposition by the imperial commissioners, since they could 
not be accusers and judges at the same time. Dioscurus accordingly took his seat, and 
the legates remained.—Subsequently, the Romish legates withstood the first diawing up 
of the decree respecting the question of faith, desiring either that it should be made to. 
agree more closely with the epistle of Leo, or that this epistle should be mentioned in it. 


396 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 324-451. . 


in decreeing the bishop of Constantinople to be on an equality 
with the bishop of Rome. This measure Leo had foreseen, and 
in vain attempted to avert.°* He protested against it ;7° and 
Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, was actually obliged i send 
an humble letter to him, for the oriental -emperor’s sake.” 
Still the decrees of the synod continued in force; and thus be- 
gan the contest of jealousy that lasted for satbatons between 
the bishops of Rome and Constantinople. 

It is worthy of remark, that the Romish bishops were distin- 
guished by no peculiar titles in the west. In the east, the hon- 


orable appellation of patriarchs was certainly given them; but 


these titles were as yet common to all bishops in the west.” 


On this so fearfalan outcry arose, that the Illyrian bishops called out (actio v. ap. Mansi, 
vii. 105): Ol dvTiAéyovtec Neotopiavoi eiow~ ol dvtiAéyovrec ei¢ ‘Péunv axéiGwow. 

62 Comp. above, § 93, note 14. The Romish legates withdrew, actio xv. was adopted, 
and they protested (act. xvi.) against it, producing the instructions given them by Lea 
{Mansi, vii. 443): Sanctorum quoque patrum constitutionem prolatam nulla patiamini 
temeritate violari vel imminui, servantes omnimodis personae nostra in vobis—dignitatem: 
ac si qui forte civitatum suarum splendore confisi, aliquid sibi tentaverint usurpare, hoc 
qua dignum est constantia retundatis. They appealed, moreover, to the sixth Nicene 
canon, with the Romish’ addition, Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum (see § 93, 
note 1), but were immediately obliged to have the canon read to them in its original form, 
and were-thus repulsed with their protest. 

70 Leonis Epist. ad Marcianum, ad Puicheriam, ad Anataliam (ap. Quesn. Ep. 78-80, 
Baller. Ep. 104-106). 

1 In Epist. Leonis ap. Quesn. appended to Epist. 105, ap. Baller. Ep. 132. 

72 In the west the names Papa Apostolicus, Vicarius Christi, Summus Pontifex, Sedes 

Apostolica, were applied to other bishops also, and their sees (Thomassini, P. i. lib. i. c. 4. 
Basnage praef. ad Canisii Lectt. ant. t. i. p.37. G.S. Cyprian’s Belehrung yom Urspr. 
und Wachsthum des Papsthums, S. 506, ff). So also Patriarcha, especially to the 
Metropolitans. (du Pin Diss. i. § 5)—Gregory I. (Epist. lib. v. 18, 20, 41, viii. 30), was 
mistaken in believing that at the council of Chalcedon the name universalis Episcopus 
was piven to the bishop of Rome. He is styled olxouyevixdc dpytexiokoroc (Mansi, vi: 
1006, 1012), only in the Complaints of two Alexandrian deacons against Dioscurus ; other 
patriarchs have the same appellation (see above, § 93, note 20). But in another place the 
title was surreptitiously introduced into the Latin acts by the Romish legates. . In the 
sentence passed on Dioscurus, actio iii. (Mansi, vi. 1048), the council say, 6 éyséraroc 
«at Paxapiararoc dpyierioxoroc tic peydAne tal mpecBurépac ‘Péunc Aéwv: on the 
contrary, in the Latin aets which Leo sent to the Gallic bishops\(Leonis Ep. 103, al. 82), 
we read : Sanctus ac beatissimus Papa, caput universalis Ecclesiae, Leo. In the older 
editions the beginning of Leo’s Epist. 97 (ap. Quesn. 134, Baller. 165), runs thus: Leo 
Romae et universalis catholicaeque ecclesiae Episcopus Leoni semper Augusto salutem 
Quesnel and the Ballerini, however, found in all the Codices only: Leo Episcopus Leoni 
Augusto. The fable, which is repeated even by the Catechismus Romanus, p. ii. c. 7, qu. 
24, § 4, thdt Cyril, at the Council of Ephesus, styled the bishop of Rome, Archiepiscopum 
totius orbis terrarum Patrem et Patriarcham, first proceeded from the St. Thomae (f 1274) 
Catena aurea in Evang. ad Matth. xvi. 18, who also, in his Opusc. contra errores Grae- 
worum, falsely attributes many similar passages to the Greek fathers. See Launofi 
Bpistt. lib. i. Ep. 1-3. 





3 


er 


CHAP. IV.—HISTORY OF MONACHISM. § 95.—ORIGIN. 897 


FOURTH CHAPTER. 


HISTORY OF MONACHISM. 


_ Kad. Hospiniani de Monachis, h. e. de Origine et Progressu Monachatus libb. vi. Tiguri. 

- 1588. ed. ii. auct. 1609. - Genev. 1669. fol— Ant. Dadini Alteserrae Asceticéy s. Origg 
rei monasticae libb. x. Paris. 1674. 4. rec. ac praef. notasque adjecit Chr. F. Glick. 
Halae. 1782. 8—Edm. Martene de Antiquis monachorum ritibus. Lugd. 1690. 4.—J. 
Binghami Origg. lib. vii. (vol. iii. p. 1, ss. —Hippol. Helyot Histoire des ordres monas- 
tiques, etc. Paris. 1714, 19. t. viii. 4. translated into German under the title : Ausfihyl, 
Gesch, aller geistl. u. weltl. Kloster u. Ritterorden. Leipzig. 1753, 56. 8 Bde. 4.—(Mus- 
son) Pragm. Geschichte d. yornehmsten Ménchsorden aus ihren eigenen Geschicht- 
schreibern (Paris. 1751, ss.) i. e., deutschen Ausz. (v. L. G. Crome) mit ein. Vorrede vy. 
Ch. W. Fr. Walch. Leipzig. 1774-84. 10 Bde. 8. J. H. Mohler’s Gesch. d. Ménch- 
thums in d. Zeit, s. Entstehung u. ersten Ausbildung, in his Schriften u. Aufsitzen 
herausgeg. von D6llinger, ii. 165. Neander’s Kirchengesch. ii. 2, 486, ss. 


§ 95. 
ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF MONACHISM IN THE EAST. 


Solitude and asceticism were universally looked upon in this 
age as means of approximation to the Deity. The New Platon- 
ists recommended them.! The Jewish Essenes and Thera- 
 peutae lived in this manner.2 Thus Anthony (Div. I. § 73), 


1 After Plato’s example in the Phaedo and Theaetetus. Plotinus recommends the pévov 
elvat, movov tpd¢ povov (Oedv) yevéobar. See Creuzer ad Plotini Opp. ed. Oxon. iii. 140, 
276, 412. A, Jahnii Basilius Magnus plotinizans. _Bernae. 1838. 4. p. 19. 
* “2 Still in the time of Nilus, who lived as monk on Sinai, a.p. 430. See Nili tract. ad 
Magnam, c. 39. (Nili tractatus ed. J. M. Suaresius, Romae. 1673. fol. p. 279), and de 
Monast. exercis. ¢, 3. (Le. P. 2), where they are called ’legoaiou. 


Fe ek Or | alk 
peas pane 


398 ; SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 324-451. 


appeared to have set forth the ideal of a Christian wise man ; 


he soon found many imitators, and other hermits fixed them-_ 
‘selves in his neighborhood. _Many more were concealed in inac- 


cessible places, of whom one, Paul of Thebes (t+ 340), who had 
lived in the desert ever since the Decian persecution, is said to 
‘have become known to Anthony shortly before his death.* | After 


‘a number of hermits had been brought into a kind of connection’ 


with one another by Anthony, Pachomius founded a place of 
habitation where they might dwell together (xorv6Gtov, wavdpa, 
claustrum.—KorvoBirgc, Svvodityc), on the island Tabenna in 
the Nile (about 340), witha system of rules for the government 
of its inmates, by which strict obedience to the president (’AGBac, 
'Hyotyevoc, ’Apytuavdpitnc) was particularly enforced. At the 
same time Amun founded a society of monks on the Nitrian 


mountain (76 tic Nitpiag dpoc) ; and Macarius the elder* in the 


neighboring wilderness of Skeétzs.? Both were soon peopled. by 
the monks, and became the most celebrated resorts. Hilarion 
assembled in the desert near Gaza, a company of monks, and 
from thence the system spread through Palestine and Syria.® 
_ The Eusebian Eustathius, aftérward bishop of Sebaste, intro- 
duced it into Armenia and Asia Minor.’ The peculiarities of the 
monkish life of this period consisted in solitariness, manual labor, 
spiritual exercises,® restraint of the bodily appetites for the pur- 


3 Vita Antonii by Athanasius, see Div. I. § 73, note 22. Vita Pauli by J erome. 


* Probably from him we have the Homiliae spirituales 50, ed. J. G. Pritius. Lips. 1698 


and 1714.8. Comp. Paniel’s Gesch. der christl. Beredsamkeit, i. 396. 

§ Coptic Schiét, Greek Tujrync, ExAric, ap. Ptolemy Xxiafic, Latin Scetis, Scithis, 
Scytiaca, Scythium, means chiefly the hill on which Macarius settled, then the surrounding 
desert. Et. Quatremére Mémoires géograph. et hist. sur !Egypte. (Paris. t. 2. 1811. 8.) 
i. 451. 

6 Vita Hilarionis by Jerome.—Aaivpaz in Palestine. 

7 On the first monks generally see Socrates, iv. 23, 24. Sozomenus, i. 12-15, ili. 14, vi. 
28-34. Palladii (bishop of Helenopolis, afterward of Aspona, t about 420), Historia Lau- 
siaca in Jo. Meursii Opp. vol. viii. (Florent. 1746. fol.) p. 329. Theodoreti @:A6@co¢ 
toropia, g Fé 

8 Even Tertullian (de Orat. c. 25, et adv. Psychicos, c. 10) and Cyprian (de Orat. domin, 
p. 154) recommended the hora tertia, sexta, and nona, as times of prayer, while every 
day, morning and evening, church service was performed. (Const. apost. ii. 59.) Among 
the monks different usages arose at first. The Egyptians had, on every day of the week, 
only two meetings for prayer (Cassianus de Instit. coenob. iii. 2, vespertinas ac nocturnas 
congregationes), and in their cells carried on manual labor; and prayed almost incessantly ; 
those of the East came together for the purpose of singing psalms, hora tertia, sexta, et 
nona (I. c. c. 3), the matutina hora was first introduced at a later period into the monastery 
at Bethlehem (1. c. c. 4). Athanasius de virginitate (Opp. i. 1051, ss.), marks out for the 
nuns six seasons of prayer, viz., the third, sixth, ninth, twelfth hours (a more solemn as- 


sembly in the church at the last hour), uecovbxtiov and mpd¢ bp8pov. So also Jerome, 





‘ A iat een 
Sule te S PA the sa ’ ’ } eae Pace 
Pe ee eee eee a ee ep ee » 








CHAP. IV ~MONAGBISM. § 95. INTHE Bast. 399 
{ 


pose of mortifying the Sac nature, aid allowing the spirit . 


with less disturbance to be absorbed in the contemplation of di- 
vine things.’ The rules ef the monasteries made, indeed, more 
moderate demands on the abstinence of the inmates;!° but the 
majority of the monks did more than was required, of their own 
free choice, and many even withdrew from the cells of the con- 


vents into the desert (’Avaywpyrai), that they might suppress : 


sensual desires by the most ingenious self-tortures, and attain 
the highest degree of holiness. In many cases these measures 
had only the contrary effect, and temptations increased ;'! many 


Epitaph. Paulae Epist. 27, 10, Epist. 7 ad Laetam; according to Chrysostom. in 1 Tim. 
Hom. xiv. the monks had the same hours. Basil also, de Instit. monach. sermo, prescribes 


. these six; but that there may be seven, agreeably to Psalm cxix. 164, the prayer of noon ~ 
is directed to be divided into that before and that after eating. When six public hours for 
prayer are prescribed to the churches in the apostolic constitutions, viii. 34, the writer fol- — 
lows the view which arose in the fourth century, viz., that in the apostolic churches for _ 


which he pretends to write, a monastic institute prevailed. Even in his day there were 
daily but two»religious services, as at an early period (év éorépg kai év rpwia, Chrysost. 
in 1 Tim. Hom. vi.). 

9 Respecting the Egyptian monasteries comp. Hieronymi Ep. 18 (al. 22) ad astochiant 
(ed. Martian. t..iv. P. ii. p. 45).. Jo. Cassiani Collationes Patrum, et de Institutis coenobio- 
ram. On the labors cf. de Inst. coen. x. 23: Haec est apud Aegyptum ab antiquis patri- 

- bus sancita sententia : operantem monachum daemone uno pulsari, otiosum vero innumeris 
spiritibus devastari. Cf. Alteserra, 1. c. lib. v.cap. 7 et 8. Neander’s Chrysostomus, B. 1, 
8. 80, ff 

10 Comp. Pachomius? rule (ap. Pallad. Hist. Laus. c. 38): Svyywphoece éxdoTw Kata 
THY Odvamy gdayeiv Kal meiv, kat Tpd¢ Tac duvduetc TOV. éoOtdvTwv. dvddoya Kal Ta 
épya aitav éyxelpyoor, kal unte vyoteioat Kaktonce wate dayeiv. 

11 See the confessions of Jerome, Ep. 18, ad, Eustochium: Ille igitur ego, qui ob gehen- 


nae metum tali me carcere ipse damnaveram, scorpionum tantum socius et ferarum, saepe . 


choris intereram puellarum. Pallebant ora jejuniis, et mens desideriis aestuabat in frigido 
corpore, et ante hominem suum jam in-carne praemortua, sola libidinum incendia bullie 
bant. -Itaque omni auxilio destitutus, ad Jesu jacebam pedes, rigabam lachrymis, crine 
tergebam,.et repugnantem carnem hebdomadarum inedia subjugabam—Memini me cla- 
mantem, diem crebro junxisse cum nocte, nec prius a pectoris cessasse verberibus, quam 
tediret Domino increpante tranquillitas. Ep. 95, ad Rusticum: Dum essem juvenis, et 
solitudinis me deserta vallarent: incentiva vitioram ardoremque naturae ferre non pote- 


ram: quem cum crebris jejuniis frangerem, mens tamen cogitationibus aestuabat. Ad 


quam. edomandam cuidam fratri, qui ex Hebraeis crediderat, me in disciplinam dedi, ut 


—alphabetum discerem, et stridentia ay seine verba meditarer. In like manner } 
Basil admits to his friend Gregory, Ep. 2: KaréAirov pév tac év dotet Starpupac og 
pupiov Kaxdv Gdopudc, éuavrov d& oir drodiretv Hdvv_Onv.—oTe obdev péya THe - 


épnuiac dravducba Tabtyc. On the temptations to lust see Nilus, lib. ii. Ep. 140. (Nili 
Epistolarum, libb. iv.. Romae. 1668. p. 179.) In the quaestt. et responsiones ad ortho- 
doxos among Justin’s works, written after 400, it is asked, qu:21, whether sensual dreams 
exclude from the supper: "Exedy moAAG got rept TobTOV Kal wap’ abtdv (Tv wovaydr) 
h Gjrnow. Comp. Nilus, rept diaddpwr rovypdv Aoysoudv (Tractatus ed. Suaresii, 
p. 512). Basilii regulae breviores, interrog. 22. Comp. the experience of Philo, Legis 
allegor. lib. ii. (properly lib. ii.) p. 1102: Eyd roAAdxig Katahivov pév dvOpdrove, ovy- 
yeveic, Kal dihove, Kat watpida, Kal ic Epnuiav Eu», iva te Tov Bag dkiov KaTavojew, 
obdév Gvnca> GAA oKopriabeic 6 voic, 7 TABer SnxOeic, Gvexdpyoev ele tévayria. 





2 


400 ; “SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D. 324-451. 


monks were driven to despair by a sense of the hopelessness of 

their efforts ;'? in the case of others, complete madness was su- 
perinduced by that excessive asceticism, and by the pride asso- 

ciated with it, under the influence of a burning climate.’* From 
that diseased excitement of the imagination, and that spiritual. 
pride, arose also those strange miraculous occurrences which be- 
~ fel the monks only in solitude. The lesser marvelous things 

which they wrought in the circles of enthusiastic admirers must 
be explained by the impression they made on the: feelings of 

“reverence entertained toward the persons of the monks, and by 
the magnifying nature of tradition." 


“Eore O' bre wai év rwAGOer urvpidvdpe épnud trav didvorav, Tov WuyiKdv by2ov oxedd- 
cavtoc Geod, xai diddfavrtéc we, Sti ob T6mwY dtagopal 76 Te ed Kal yelpov épyalovrat, 


|. GAN b KiwwGv O8b¢ kai Gywov, 7 dv mpoaipHrat, Td Tie WuxHe 6ynua. Zimmermann on 


Solitude, part 2, chapters 6 and 7. 

12 So that some, like the circumcelliones (see § 86, note 9), put an end to their life, see 
Nilas, lib. ii. Ep. 140: Tivéc wey aitadv Seviobévtec, cal GopuG@nbévrec tov vodv &§ dmpoc- 
egiag kal ddtaxptolac, éavroic écgatay payaipg, tivéc dé KatTexphuvncav éavTove 
“dgopnte Atty Kai Groyvace ovoxebévtec, Etepor 62 TA yevvnTiKxd popta Kowavrec, 
_kat abrogovevtal éavtGy tH mpoarpécet yeyovétec ol taéAavec, bxémecay TH GroCTOALKR - 
, Gpd—aAror 62 Kai yvvaixac tAaBov ovvapracbévtec bx5 Tod TatavG. Gregor. Naz. 
Carm. xlvii. v. 100, ss. (Opp. t. ii. 107) : 


Ovyckovely ToALoic Tpodpovéwe Oavarote, 
Abroi id agetépne maraunc, Kal yaotpoc GvdyKy, 
Oi 62 xaT& cxorédwv BévOeai 7 78 Bpdxore, 
Médprupec atpexing’ woAéuov & Gro kal crovdéevroc 
, Xaipovow Bibtov roid’ drravicrdpuevot. 
_ “Aa Xproré Gvak xicraic dpeciv dgpadéovory ! 


the app. p.,41): ‘H d@ rHc Biartuite bmoBoay TOV by Opin édv etpy Tiva wR vyndddaior, 
Kav 4 Gyarav Bedv,—roitov drodéce. Kai roddot tavdtwoav éavrove, 6 pév exdvo- 
Oev métpac éavtov pipacg oc éxoratikds, Kai GAdoc payaipa anéntvsev. thy Kotdiav 
abrov Kai axéBavev, Kai GAAot GAAwe. Cf. Chrysostomi ad Stagirium, libb. iii. (Opp. i. 
153) to a monk who believed that he had been tempted by Satan to commit suicide. 
Others sought assistance | in their struggle against desire in immoderate sleep. WNili, lib. 
iii. Ep. 224. 

13 Hieronymi Ep. 95 (a. 4), ad Rusticum: Sunt, qui humore cellarum; immoderatisque 
jejaniis, taedio solitudinis ac nimia lectione, dum diebus ac noctibus auribus suis personant, 
yertuntur in melancholiam, et Hippocratis magis fomentis quam nostris monitis indigent. 
Ejusd. Ep. 97 (al. 8) ad Demetriadem: Novi ego in utroque sexu per nimiam abstinen- 
tiam cerebri sanitatem quibusdam fuisse vexatam: praecipueque in his, qui in humectis 
et frigidis habitaverunt cellulis, ita ut nescirent quid agerent, quove se verterent: quid 
loqui, quid tacere deberent. Hence his disapprobation of extreme fasting in Ep. 57 (al. 7) 
ad Laetam and Jo. Cassian. Instit. v. 9. 

1¢ Several hints on this subject may be found in the following passages: Hieron. Ep. 59, 
ad Rusticum: Quosdam ineptos homines daemonum pugnantium contra se portenta con- 
fingere, ut apud imperitos et vulgi homines miraculum sui faciant, et exinde lucra sectentur. 
Sozomenus, i. 14: TloAAad d2 nai Ocoréowa é’ aitG (’Auodv) cvuBéBnnev, & wadAtcta 
Toig Ka? Alyuntov povaxotg HkplBaral, wept ToAA0D ToLovuévorc, Stadoyg Tapadécewe 





<—. i" Dy ae = al ee ae a ee 


CHAP. IV._MONACHISM. § 95. IN THE EAST. 401 


Very soon in the east monachism was received with enthusi- 
astic admiration, and the number of monks swelled to an enor- 
mous extent.?® Since there were no more persecutions, and no 
more opportunities of martyrdom; since Christianity had even 
acquired external dominion; the erroneous notion was spread 
abroad that there was no longer an opportunity in the world for 
the full exercise of Christian virtue."® The general corruption’ 
or consciousness of individual guilt caused many to seek solitude. 
Many sought escape from the oppressive circumstances of life.’* 
Others wished to make a figure and obtain an influence. Others 
were attracted by sloth ;’® and lastly, others were drawn away 


dypugov ériueAde arouvnuovetery Tag THY Tadatotépwy doKnToOv dpetac. Sulpicius 
Severus, dial. ii. 4, relates that St. Martin often told him, nequaquam sibi in episcopatu 
eam virtutum gratiam suppetisse, quam prius se habuisse meminisset. Quod si veram 
est, immo quia verum est, conjicere possumus, quanta fuerunt illa, quae monachus operatus 
est, et quae teste nullo solus exercuit, cum tanta illum in episcopatu signa fecisse, sub 
oculis omnium viderimus. . For the physiological explanation of the frequent visions seen 
by these anchorites comp. D. Joh. Miller iber die phantastischen Gesichterscheinungen. 
Coblenz. 1826. 8. = 

15 Pachomius had in his convent 1300 monks, and in all upward of 7000 under his 
superintendence (Sozom. iii. 14). In a monastery at Thebais were 5000 monks (Cass. de 
Instit. iv. 1), in Nitria were fifty convents (Sozom. vi. 31), etc. 

16 A kindred notion may be found in Origen, see Div. I. § 70, note 19. 

11 Chrysostomus adv. oppugnatores vitae monast. i. 7: “EGovAdunv Kal abrog—tav 
wovactnpiwy dvaipebyvat THY Xpeiav, Kal TocadTyny év Taig TéAECL yevéobar THY ebvo- 
piav, d¢ undéva SenOyvai mote THe ei¢ THY Epnuov Katadvyjc’ éemetdy OF Ta dvw KdTw 
yéyove, kai ai wév wéAEiC—mTOAAAC yés“ovot Tapavouiac Kai ddiKiac, 7 O& Epnuia TOAAD 
Bpbec TH THE GtAocodgiacg KapTO oby of tig CaAne TabtyS Kai Tie TapaxAe TOde CwbAVaL 
Bovdopévoug éSayovrec, kai mpdc Tov THE Havyiac bdnyobvTag Aéva, Sixaiwng dv éyxa- 
Aoivto zap’ budv. 

18 Jsidorus Pelus. (see § 88,note 25) lib, i. Ep. 262. EtoéBio¢g (a bishop) kai rodro TH 
mapotxia IIndovciov mapéxeto, Bovvéyorg tici, Kai aimdAotc, kai dparératc olxérace 
émitpévuv povayixd ovuryyvvcbar maAdaorhpia, obdevi pabntevdeion THY povaytKgy, 
} petedOovtor, 7 dwg dyardvTwr, ob8 bAws Tig Gthocogiacg Tairy¢g 7 aKnKOdoLY, R 
méxpe oxjuates didaxGeiar. 

~ 49 Respecting the reputation which the monks possessed, compare what Chrysostom 
says to the heathen father of a monk, adv. oppugnatores vitae monast. ii.4: Lv pév ody 
T&v cavtTod Kbptoc el udvov, éxeivog (6 vide cov) d& Tév KaTa THY oikovpévny aracar. 
el 08 GroTeic,—reicwpev abtov KateAfévta xd Tod bpove—onudvai Tit TOY odd6dpa 
TAouTobvtTwv Kai ebAaBdv, réupat ypvood cTabudr, boov éOéAetc,—Kali zpobvudtepov 
Owe. Tov TAovToivTa braxotovTa Kai éxxouifovTa, } TOV oikovéuwy TLVa TOV Gar. 
C: 6: Edpfhoouev aibtov (tov viév cov) ob pdvov Aaurpérepov bvta viv, GAA Kai dv 
éxeiva Tyudtepor, Ov Grep Gtimov elvar dig Kal edTeAH. ei yap Boviet, relcavteg adbros 
xd Tod épove KateAeiv, reicwuev Kai ei¢ dyopav buBareiv, Kai der maoav éxcotpe- 
gouévay vy TOA, Kai brodeunvivrac abrov dravrac, Kat Gavudlovrac, kat éxnAntto- 
uévove, a¢ dyyéhov tivdc 2 odpavod mupayevouévov viv. C. 7: Tig mera mhetovog 
éSovolag duahéSerar Baotrei, cai éexitiyjoer; 6 TocadTa ov Kextnuévoc, Kal ixedOuvvog 
Ov da Tatra Kat totic éxeivov dodbdAoic,—h obroc 6 THv éxeivov yetipGv avarepog Ov; 

Bacthedou piv ydp odtot pwadAtota diedéyOnoav per’ éfovotac TOAAT Cs 600. mdévTwv 
syévovto Tév BiwTiKOv pati C. 8: Ei ramecvol, cai éx tarewGv bvte¢ tivi¢g Gypol- 


VoL: 1.—26 


402 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 324-451. 


by mere imitation.2® The measures taken by the emperor Va- 
lens" against the excessive tendency to this state of things were 
attended with no lasting consequences, since the following em- 
perors only showed the more respect for monachism. The.most 
distinguished teachers of the church, Athanasius, Ambrose, Basil 
the Great, Gregory of Nazianzum, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Au- 
gustine, were the most zealous panegyrists of the new mode of 
life (piAocodia, dyyeArny diaywyy).”” Examples in favor of it 
were soon discovered even in the Old Testament ;** and by new 


kav viol Kal yetpoTexvav, éxi tHY gidocodgiay TavTnyv éADbvTEC, OdTwC EyévovToO Tipsot 
maou, O¢ undéva Tév év Toi¢g weydAotc 6vTwv &idpaci aicyuvOjvar mpo¢ T6 KaTAyayLov 
tottav éAOeiv, kai Aédyov petracyeiv Kai tpavélyne —r0AAG wGAAov, trav xd Aaurpow 
uty bpyopuevov yévouvc—mpoc éxeivgv idwoww éAGévTa THY dpEeTHY, TodTO éEpyacorTat. 
Nilus Aéyoc doxytixéc, c. 7 (Opusc. ed. Suaresii, p. 8): The striving of many monks was 
even at that time so much directed toward the attainment of possessions, Gate Aoirdv 
Tove ToAAov’e Toptopdy Hyeicbar THY eboéBerav, Kai dr’ obdév Erepov éxitHdevecBat 
Tov mada dxpdypova Kai pakdpiov Biov, } brac did tHE éxixAdoToV BeoceBeiag Ta¢ 
pév éximévouc Aectovpyeiac gtyapev, Gderay 62 Grodatcews Topioduevol, GxwAttac éxt 
Ta doxovvTa Tac dpuac éxteivwuev, weTa TOAARC avatcyvvTiag KaTaAalovevdpevor TGV 
brodeeatépwr, éott 62 Ste Kai TGv brepexévTwv, Worep bTdGecw Tvpavvidoc, GAW odbyi 
Tamewecews Kai émetketac Tov évapetov Biov eivar vouicavtes. Ald TodTo Kai Tapa 
tov céBecbat jude bdetAdvTwv Gc elxaiog byAoc dpduefa, xal—yeAdueba—oix éx 
moAtteiac, GAN’ éx oxjuatoc yvwpilecbar BovAdpevor. 

20 Comp. the judgment of Synesius, at that time still a heathen, afterward bishop of 
Ptolemais, in his Dion: Oj dé mAeiove ob6’ vixoBev éxivAByoav,—dGorep 62 Gd2Ao TL TOY 
eddoKiLovvTaY, THY yevvaiay aipeciy énAdxact, weexeerre te évtec ta yévn, Kal Kata 
xpeiav Exactot ovvioTduevot. 

21 Cod. Theodos. xii..1, 63 (A.D. 365): Quidam ignaviae sectatores desertis civitatum 
muneribus captant solitudines ac secreta, et specie religionis cum coetibus monazonton 
congregantur. Hos igitur atque hujusmodi, intra Aegyptum deprehensos, per comitem 
Orientis erui e latebris consulta praeceptione mandavimus, atque ad munia patriarum 
subeunda revocari, aut pro tenore nostrae sanctionis familiarium rerum carere illecebris, 
quas per eos censuimus vindicandas, qui publicarum essent subituri munera fanctionum. 
After the death of his milder brother (Orosii Hist. vii. 33: illico post fratris obitam), 
Valens became more violent against the monks, see Hieron. Chron. ann. 375: Multi 
monachorum Nitriae per tribunos et milites caesi. Valens enim lege data, ut monachi 
militarent, nolentes fustibus interfici jussit. This raised the courage of the numerous 
opponents of monachism, and therefore Chrysostom wrote at that time mpd¢ Tove zroAe- 
uovvtag Toi¢ éxi TH wovdlery évayovery libb. iii. (ed. Montf. t. i.) 

22'Q rév dyyéAwv Bioc, Ta obpavia ToALTeEbuaTa, drooToAiKd¢ Biog (Epiph. Haer 
lxi. 4), 7 dwnAq giAocogia, Epyw paAAOv 7 Aédyw KaTopHovuévy (Gregor. Nyss. Orat 
catech. c. 18), 7 Kata Oedv gtAocogia (Nilus de Monast. exercitatione, c. 8). Serapion, 
bishop of Thmuis, about 350, writes in the Epist. ad monachos (Spicilegium Romanum, 
iv. p. liv.) to them: “Iodyyedot gore tH woAtTeig- Gomep yap tv TH dvacTdce THY 
vekp@v ovTe yapovoy obre yapickovTal, GAN wo dyyedor eiciv év oipave of dixazor, 
Tov abtov tpdérov Kal tyeic obtw cuuBiotedovTes, mpoeAdBete TH T6OW 7d éoduevor. 
Entering on the life of a monk is called by Jerome, Ep. 22 (al. 25), ad Paulam: Secundo 
quodammodo propositi se baptismo lavare. Subsequently Dionys. Areop. de Eccles. 
hierarch. c. 6, reckons the vow of monks (uvoripiov povaytki¢g TeAecdcewe) among the 
sacraments. 

*° Hieronymus in vita S. Pauli (about 365): Inter multos saepe dubitatum, est, a quo 


CHAP. IV—MONACHISM. §95. IN THE EAST. 403 


explanations of detached passages and the help of supplementing 
legends, the original condition of the early Christians was shown 
to be a completely monastic state.” 

For a long time the monks appeared to have been able to 
dwell only in deserts. Individuals, indeed, sometimes showed 


potissimum Monachorum eremus habitari coepta sit. Quidam enim altius repetentes, a b. 
Elia et Johanne sumsere principium. Quorum et Elias plus nobis videtur fuisse, quam 
Monachus: et Johannes ante prophetare coepisse, quam natus sit. Alii autem, in quam 
opinionem vulgus omne consensit, asserunt Antonium hujus propositi caput, quod ex parte 
verum est. Non enim tam ipse ante omnes fuit, quam ab eo omnium incitata sunt studia. 
Amathas vero et Macarius, discipuli Antonii, e quibus superior magistri corpus sepelivit, 
etiam nunc affirmant, Paulum quemdam Thebaeum principem istius rei fuisse, non nominis; 
guam opinionem nos quoque probamus. On the contrary, the same Jerome observed, 
about 395, Ep. 49 (al. 13), ad Paulinum: Nos autem habeamus propositi nostri principes 
Paulos et Antonios, Julianos, Hilarionem, Macarios. Et ut ad scripturarum auctoritatem 
redeam: noster princeps Helias, noster Helisaeus, nostri duces filii prophetarum, q 
habitabant in agris et solitudinibus, et faciebant sibi tabernacula prope fluenta Jordariis. 
De his sunt et illi filii Rechab (Jerem. xxxv.), qui vinum et siceram non bibebant, qui 
morabantur in tentoriis, ete. Sozomenus, i. 12: Tattyc 62 tig dpiotne dtAocodiac 
npsaro, &¢ tiwe¢ Aéyovatv, ‘HAiac 6 xpodntne, Kai "lwdven¢e 6 Bantiorne. 

24 The Therapeutae were regarded as Christians (Div. I. § 17, note 11), and for this 
purpose such passages as Acts ii. 44, iv. 32, ss. were appealed to. Hieron. Catal. c. 11: 
Philo—libram de prima Marci Evangelistae apud Alexandriam scribens ecclesia, in nos- 
trorum laude versatus est (he means Philo repi Biov Gewpytixod); non solum eos ibi, sed 
in multis quoque provinciis esse commemorans, et habitacula eorum dicens monasteria. 
Ex quo apparet, talem primam Christo credentium fuisse ecclesiam, quales nunc monachi 
esse nituntur et cupiunt, ut nihil cujuspiam proprium sit, nullus inter eos dives, nullus 
pauper; patrimonia egentibus dividuntur, orationi vacatur et psalmis, doctrinae quoque 
et continentiae: quales et Lucas refert primum Hierosolymae fuisse credentes. Jo 
Cassian. Collat. 18, c.5: Itaque Coenobitarum disciplina a tempore praedicationis apos- 
tolicae sumsit exordium. Nam talis extitit in Hierosolymis omnis illa credentium mul 
titude, quae in Actibus Apostolorum ita describitur (seqq. loci Act. iv. 32, 34, 35) —Sed 
cum post Apostolorum excessum tepescere coepisset credentium multitudo, ea vel maxime, 
quae ad fidem Christi de alienigenis ac diversis gentibus confluebat,—non solum hi qui ad 
fidem Christi confluxerant, verum etiam illi, qui erant ecclesiae principes, ab illa distric- 
tione laxati sunt—Hi autem, quibus adhuc apostolicus inerat fervor, memores illius 
pristinae perfectionis, discedentes a civitatibus suis—et ea, quae ab Apostolis per univer- 
sum corpus ecclesiae generaliter meminerant instituta, privatim ac peculiariter exercere 
coeperunt, etc. Idem de Institut. coenob. ii. 5: Cum in primordiis fidei pauci quidem, 
sed probatissimi, monachorum nomine censerentur, qui sicut a beatae memoriae evan- 
gelista Marco, qui primus Alexandrinae urbi Pontifex praefuit, normam suscepere vivendi, 
non solum illa magnifica retinebant, quae primitus ecclesiam vel credentium turbas in 
Actibus Apostolorum legimus celebrasse, verum etiam his multo sublimiora cumulaverant; 
cf. Sozoments, i. 12. Hence the monks were said drocroAkdv Biov Brody, Epiphan. 
Haer. 61, § 4—Legends of the monkish chastity of the saints, of Mary especially, 
Protevangelium Jacobi, c. 7, ss. From a misunderstanding of Exodus xiii. 1 (2 Macc. 
iii. 19 1) it was thought that there were in the templé virgins consecrated to God, among 
whom Mary had grown up (Epiphan. Ancorat. no. 60. Gregor. Nyss. Orat. de sancta 
Christi nativitate) with the vow of perpetual virginity (Augustinus de virginitate, c. 4). 
Her marriage with Joseph was only apparent, he being eighty years old (Epiph. Haer. 
51, c. 10), and according to Epiph. I. c. a widower, but according to Jerome adv. Helvid. - 
c. 9, a perpetual ascetic. Cf. J. A. Schmidii prolusiones Marianae x. Helmst. 1733. 4, 
p- 21, ss.—1 Cor. ix. 5, was referred to female friends of the apostles (Div. I. § 27, note 3). 


404 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 324-451. 


themselves in cities to oppose heathens and heretics, but they 
always withdrew again very soon into their solitude.”  Basii 
the Great was the first who established a company of naonks in 
the vicinity of Caesarea in Cappadocia, in order to suppress 
Arianism, by their influence with the people.”®. From this time 
monasteries became more frequent in the neighborhood of cities ; 
but since there were as yet no strict rules, wandering compa- 
nies of monks were also found. ‘Thus their influence in Churcly 
and State beeame stronger, but, at the same time, more dan- 
gerous. . 

It is true that the monks made a strong moral impression by 
their strict life, dedicated to God in solitude. Even heathens 
frequently repaired to them in numbers, for the sake of receiving 
their blessing, and were converted by them.”” But the honor 
and power they possessed not unfrequently caused the passions 
within them, which were suppressed in regard to their sensual 
manifestations, to break forth still more strongly in the form of 
spiritual pride,** and wild fanaticism, against those who thought 
differently from themselves. From the time of Theodosius I., 
they opposed heathenism with fury and barbarousness ;”? and they 


25 Antony said: Todc¢ pév iyOdac tiv bypdy obciay tTpégerv* wovayoic d2 Kécuov dépery 
thy épnuov: érione té Tove pév Enpdc axtouévove To Gav Grodyrdverv, tode 6&8 THY 
LOVaOTLKAY cEeLvoTnTa GToAAvELY Toi¢ doTect TpooLdvTac. Sozom. i. 13. 

26 Socrates, iv. 21. Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. xx. in laudem Basilii, p. 358: Tot Tolvuyv 
épnuixod Biov nai Tod uryado¢ payouévwr mpd¢ GAARAOvE He TU TOAAA, Kai SLicrauévor, 
Kai obderépov TaVTaC 7) TO KAAGY, 7} TO HadAov dverivixtov EyovTog’ GAAA Tod pev Hov- 
xlov pév bvTo¢g paAAov, Kal KabeoTnK6TOG, Kai BH ovvdyovToc, obk drigov J? did TO TIC 
dpetne GBaodvioroyv Kai GobyKpitov' Tod d& mpakTiKwrépov pev paAAov Kal yxpyowuw- 
tépov, TO 6& OopvBGde¢ od getyovToc: Kai TobdToUVg GpLoTa KAaTHAAALEY aAAHAOLC Kab 
ovvexépacev’ GoKnTHpia Kai povactapia deyduevoc pév, od Téppw 62 TOV KotvoviKdv 
Kal plyddwy, obd& Gorep terxiw Tiwi wéow Taira dtadaBar, Kai an’ GAAHAWY ywpicac, 
GAAa TAnotov ovvdrpac Kai dialedsac’ iva pHTe TH GLAdcodoy GKoLvdvyTov 7; wATE TO 
TPAKTLKOV adLAdcogov. On the Ascetica of Basil, the chief parts of which are épo. kat& 
mAdroc and épot Kar’ éxctouqy (monks’ rules), see Garnier in praef. ad Basil. Opp. t.ii 
p. Xxxiv.ss: 27 See Mohler’s Schriften u. Aufsatze, ii. 219. 

28 Hieronym. Ep. 15 (al. 77), ad Marcum: Pudet dicere, de cavernis cellularum damna- 
mus orbem, in sacco et cinere volutati de Episcopis sententiam ferimus. Quid facit sub 
tunica poenitentis regius animus? Catenae, sordes et comae, non sunt diadematis signa, 
sed fletus. Idem Ep. 95 (al. 4), ad Rusticum: In solitudine cito subrepit superbia: et si 
parumper jejunaverit, hominemque non viderit, putat se alicujus esse momenti. Oblitus- 
que sui, unde, et quo venerit, intus corde, lingua foris vagatur. Judicat contra Apostoli 
voluntatem alienos seryos: quo gula voluerit porrigit manum: dormit quantum voluerit: 
nullum veretur: facit quod voluerit: omnes inferiores se putat: crebriusque in urbibus, 
quam in cellula est: et inter fratres simulat verecundiam, qui platearum turbis colliditur. 
Comp. Nilus, above, note 19. 

* 2 Comp. Libanius, above, § 78, note 9. Zosimus, v. 23. Eunapius in Vita Aedesii: 
Movayodc, dvOpdrove ev Kata Td eldoc, 6 62 Biog abtoic cvddyc, Kai ele Td éudavec 


CHAP. IV—-MONACHISM. § 95. IN THE EAST. 405 


also mingled in ecclesiastical controversies in a manner no less 
violent. Since they despised all learning, and founded their 
judgment of orthodoxy merely on an obscure feeling of what 
looked like piety, and what did not,* it was seldom difficult for 
a superior head to excite their fanaticism in favor of a certain 
view. Thus the ambitious bishops of Alexandria, Theophilus, 
Cyril, and Dioscurus, knew well how to make use of them, 
partly to work upon the people, partly to overpower their oppo- 
nents by acts of violence.*' | The rude mass were as easily ex- 
cited, in a fanatical manner, against a Chrysostom, at the point 
of death,” as against idolaters and Arians. The limits of civil 
law, and the dignity of magistrates, appear to have been disre- 
garded by them.** In them religious fanaticism was united 
with a cynical indifference to propriety or duty; and too often 
indolence and vice also were concealed under this mask of piety.5* 
Contemplation, which was regarded as the most important 
duty of the monk, as though it “led him to an internal union 
with God, was usually, in the absence of mental cultivation, 
either a suffering resignation to feeling, without a distinct con- 
sciousness of it,** or a play of anthropomorphic images of the 

_ fancy. Hence anthropomorphism was very common among 
them.** But incessant occupation with religious subjects, over- 


L4 


éxacyév te Kai éxoiovy wupid and Kal dgpacta. ’AAW duwc todTo péev eboeBec bdébKes 
TO Katagpoveiy tod Geiev’ TupavyiKyy ydp eiver éSovaiav téte mac dvOpwroc, uédavav 
gopav éobara, Kat dnuocia Bovdduevog doyguoveiv. 

30 Sozomenus, j.12: ‘H toaity giAccogia pabyudtuv wiv wORAGY Kal drahextinipc 
texvono,iag duerel, Oe weptépyov, kal thy év toic duetvooe cyoAHv edatporuéryc, Kal 
mpoc TO Brody dp8G¢ oddév ovAAauBavopévgnc: wovy d2 GvoiKy Kai dreptépyw dpovices 
maidebet TA TavTeAde Kakiav dvatpoivTa, 7 weiova épyalaueva. Synesius, in his Dion, 
designates them by the names of tév duotcwr, Tov uLcodéywr, Tév BapBdpwr, Tay 
dotreuddv nat brepixtav pytopikijg Kat rommoewc, see Clausen de Synesio, p. 48. 

31 Witness the insurrection of the Anthropomorphists against Theophilus, Socrates, vi. 
7, of the Nitrian monks against Orestes in favor of Cyril, vii. 13. Destruction of a Valen- 
' tinian temple, Ambrosius, Epist. 40 (al. 29), ad Theodosium. 

32 In Caesarea, comp. Neander’s Chrysost. Bd..2. S. 238. 

33 They frequently interfered violently in behalf of criminals, ex. gr. for disturbers-of. the 
public peace in Antioch, Chrysost. Orat. 17 et 18, ad popul. Antioch. Theodoreti H. E, v. 
19. Law of Arcadius, a.D. 398. (Cod. Theod. ix. xl. 16), see above, § 91, note 10. 

34 Comp. Neander’s Chrysostomus, Bd. 2, S. 108, ff 

35 Yet Anthony said (Cassiani Collat. ix. 31): Non est perfecta oratio, in qua se Motia- 
chus, vel hoc ipsum quod orat, intelligit. 

36 Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, rejected the anthropomorphism of the monks, in his 
Easter letter, 399. Cassiani Coll. x. 2: Quod tanta est amaritudine ab universo prope- 
modum genere Monachorum, qui per totam provinciam Aegypti morabantur, pro simplici- 
tatis errore susceptum, ut e contrario memoratum pontificem, velut haeresi gravissima 
depravatum, pats maxima Seniorum ab universo fraternitatis corpore decerneret detestan- 


406 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 324-451. 


strained views, and self-conceit, joined with the want of culture, 
occasionally led them to other aberrations also from the doctrine 
of the Church.*7 Audius in Mesopotamia was still worthy of 
respect, who separated from the Church on account of its cor- 
ruption, and founded a sect of monks (Audiant) about a.p 340. 


But the Messalians (j'782) or Edyéraz,*® who also arose in Mes- 


opotamia (about 360), were mere fanatics, wandering hordes of 
beggars, who supposed that incessant prayer could alone blot 
out all sins while they undervalued public worship, and were led 
into the most absurd notions by their coarse imagination. Even 
Eustathius, the founder of monachism in Armenia, came to reject 
marriage absolutely, and was, on this account, condemned with 
his followers by the Synod of Gangra (between 362 and 370).*° 

In the mean time monachism was developed in forms the 
most various. Many monks (Rhemoboth or Sarabaitae)," still 
continued to live in society ‘* like the old ascetics, but were less 


dum, quod scilicet impugnare Scripturae sanctae sententiam videretur, negans omnipo- 
tentem Deum humanae figurae compositione formatum, cam ad ejus imaginem creatum 
Adam Scripturae manifestissime testaretur. When Seraphin, an old monk highly es- 
teemed, was convinced of his error, he was so smitten with remorse (cap. 3) eo quod illam 
Anthropomorphitaram imaginem Deitatis, qaam proponere sibi in oratione consueverat, 
aboleri de suo corde sentiret, ut in amarissimos fletus crebrosque singultus repente pro- 
rumpens, in terramque prostratus, cum ejulatu validissimo proclamaret: heu me miserum, 
tulerunt a me Deum meum, et quem nunc teneam non habeo, vel quem adorem aut inter- 
pellem jam nescio. So the Anthropomorphites generally (cap. 5) nihil se retinere vel 
habere credentes, si propositam non habuerint imaginem quandam, quam in supplicatione 
positi jugiter interpellent, eamque circumferant mente, ac prae oculis teneant semper 
affixam. On the Anthropomorphism of Abraames see Theodoreti Hist. rel. c. 3. 

37 Thus some were led to entertain contempt for public worship and the sacraments, as 
Valens and Heron (Palladii Hist. Lausiaca, c. 31 et 32), and the Messalians. One Ptolemy 
went even so far with his brooding and dreaming over divine things, as to arrive at last at 
Atheism (Palladius, 1. c. c. 33). 

38 Epiphan. Haer. 70; cf. Ancoratus, c. 14. Theodoret. H. E. iv. 9; Hger. fab. comp. 
iv. 10. Walch’s Ketzerhist. iii. 300. Neander, ii. ili. 1464. They were Anthropomor 
phists and Quartodecimani. 

32 Epiphan. Haer. 80; Theodoret. H. E. iv. 10; Haer. fab. iv.11. Extracts in Photius 
Cod. 52. Walch, iii. 481. Neander, ii. ii. 514. 

4° The acts of this synod (ap. Mansi, ii. 1095) are the chief source for the knowledge of 
his doctrines. Socrat. ii. 43. Sozom. iv. 24. Walch, iii. 536. In the synodical decree it 
is also reckoned among their errors in doctrine: IlpecButépwy yeyaunkétav ixepdpo- 
voovrec, Kal TOY AEtToupyiav Tav Ur’ adbTay yiwouévuy pH amtéuevor. On the con- 
trary, can. iv.: Ei tig diaxpivoiro mapa mpecGutépov yeyaunKéroc, O¢ uy xpTVvat Aet- 
Toupyncavtog avTov mpocdopdc peTtadayBdverv, dvabeua éEcTtw. On the time of the 
synod of Gangra, see Ballerini de Ant. collect.canonum, P. 1, cap. 4, § 1. 

#1 Concerning the former, Hieron. Ep. 18 (al. 22), ad Eustochium ; concerning the latter, 
Cassian. Collat. xviii..c. 4 and 7. Walch de Sarabaitis (Novi commentarii Soc. Gotting, 
t. v. Comm. hist. p. 1, ss.). 

#2 Also with the ovveicaxra in Ambros. Sermo. 65. Gregorii Naz. Carm. in several 


passages. See Walch, |. c. p. 23,s. Moreover, there were still ascetics who abstained 


CHAP. IV—MONACHISM. §95. IN THE EAST. 407 


highly esteemed. Others wandered about in companies (Booxé:)** 
in Mesopotamia. Those who lived together in convents were 
called coenobites, each convent having its peculiar constitution, 
among whom the most distinguished since the fifth century, 
were the dxoiunror, watchers, for whom Studius, in 460, founded 
one of the most celebrated convents in Constantinople ( Stwditae).‘* 
But among the people, the anchorites were reckoned the most 
holy, for they carried their artificial self-tortures the farthest, 
and vied with each other in inventing new modes of cruelty 
against their own persons.‘® The highest point in this art was 
reached by Simeon, who, from the year 420, dwelt on a pillar 
in the neighborhood of Antioch.‘® In this he was imitated by 
others, and although at first the example was found by individ- 
uals to be doubtful,*” yet it was wondered at by the mass. Even 
so late as the twelfth century, similar pillar-saints (orvditn¢ or 
ornditns) appeared in the east. 

The female sex could not imitate the men in all these kinds 
of asceticism, though there were convents for them as early as 
for the male sex (Ascetriae, Monastriae, Castimoniales, Sancti- 
-moniales, Nonnae).** 


from certain meats, but not from marriage (abstinentes apud Tertullian, see Div. I. § 53, 
note 31); these also were now occasionally styled monks, Athanasii Epist. ad Dracon- 
tiumy: IloAAoi réy éxiokéruv ovd& yeyaufKact, wovaxol J? matépeg Téxvwv yeydvacty. 
Augustin. de Haeres. c. 40: Utentes conjugibus, et res proprias possidentes—habet cath- 


olica Ecclesia et Monachos et Clericos plurimos. #3 Sozom. vi. 33. Evagr. i. 21. 
44 Nicephori Hist. eccl. xv. 23. J.J. Miller Studium coenob. Constantinopol. ex monum. 
Byzantinis illustratum, diss. Lips. 1721. 4. #5 An example in Sozom. vi. 28-34. 


46 In like manner in heathen Syria, the @aAAoBarei¢ in the temple at Hierapolis 
(Lucianus de Dea Syria, c. 28, 29).. Respecting Simeon see Theodoreti Hist. relig. c. 
25, and his biographies by his scholar Antonius (in Act. SS. ad d. 5. Jan.), and his contem- 
porary Cosmas {in Assemani Act. 8S. Mart. Occid. et Orient. P. ii. p. 268), cf. Stylitica : 
Simeonis Stylitae seniozis biographiam graecam (a later one derived from that of Antonius), 
junicris orationem, graécam prim. ed. et illustr. H. N. Clausen (in the Miscellanea Haf- 
niensia ed. F. Miinter. tom. ii. Fasc. 2. Hafn. 1824. 8. p. 227, ss. 

47 Nili lib. ii. Bpist. 114, to the Stylite Nicander: 'O iwvdv éavtév rareivobjoerat. 
~ Sd d& undév xatophdcac éxatvotuevov mpdypya, kai tywoag ceavtov é¢’ wpnAod Tod 
- atbhou, kal Bobet weyiotwv Tuyxdvery ebonutay’ GAAA mpdcexe CavTO, unrore évtaiba 

mapa dvOpdruv d0aprdv dxpatic érawvebeic, dptiwg Td THvikaita Tapa Tod agbaprov 

Geod tadavicbgc G0Aiwe wap’ tAmidag, didtt bxép tHv Ggiav évraiba évedopHOne tdv 

avOpwrivav Kpétav. Ep. 115, to the same: "Atorov dv ein é¢’ byqAod pév Tod kiovoc 
_ tozacbat TO apart Toig mao garvopuevov Evdofov, Katw 62 Toig Aoytopoig cbpecbat, 

pundév “Stov tév obpaviny mpaypatav dtavociobar BovAduevov, pévov 0& Taig yuvarsiv 
ndéwo mMpocAahodvra by rai¢ tpépate tabratc. Ilpdnv pév yap toig dvdpdoww é&x rpo- 
Gupiac egbéyyou, viv 02 dc éxi rd KAsioTov Ta yivata mpoodéxy. 

48 Pachomius in like manner founded the first. Pallad. Hist. Laus. c. 34, et 38— : 
Nonna (Hieron. Ep. 18, ad Eustoch.), vovi¢ (Pallad. 1. c. c. 46), were names of honor, as 
among the monks Nonnus, according to Arnobius jun. in Psalm. cv. and cxl. the Egyptian 


408 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. 1.—A.D. 324-451. - 


Tt is true that the resolution of devoting themselves to a mo- 
nastic life was now to be declared, and penance was imposed 
on those who drew back; but yet the teachers of the Church 
looked upon this retractation not merely as possible, without 
farther permission, but even advisable under certain circumstan- 
ces.*° 


v 
§ 96. 
MONACHISM IN THE WEST. 


Jo. Mabillon Observ. de monachis in Occidente ante Benedictum. (Acta SS. Ord. 
Bened. Saec. I. Praef. p. 7.) 


Monachism was first acknowledged in the west by Athana- 
situs, although it was generally looked upon as an excrescence 
of oriental fanaticism, with a surprise which not unfrequently 
amounted to contempt and hatred. Yet it also found numerous 
warm friends, many of whom went as far as Egypt and Pales- 
tine, for the purpose of being initiated into the new mode of 
life. Ambrose and Jerome were the influential promoters of it 
in Italy. The former established a monastery at Milan? At 


for sanctus, castus, or according to Benedicti regula, c. 63, paterna reverentia: according 
to Jablonski Opusc. ed. te Water, t. i. p. 176, properly Ennueneh or Nueneh, i. es quae 
non est hujus saeculi, quae saeculo renunciavit.—The lady president was called mother, 
dppac (Pallad. 1. c. c. 42). 

49 Bpiphan. Haer. 61, § 7: Kpeirroy toivey éyew duapriav piav, kal wy weptocorépac. 
Kpeittov teadvta Grd dpduov davepG¢ éavt@ AaBeiv yvvaixa kata véouov, kal ard 
mapbeviag TOAA® Xpdvy peTavojoavra eicaybjvar maAw eic THY éexkAnoiav, O¢ KaKd¢ 
épyacdpevov, O¢ maparecévta, Kal KAaoVévra, Kal xpeiav Eyovta éridéwatoc, Kale ui} 
Kal? éxdorny huépav Bédect Kpvdiowg kataretpOokecOa. Hieronym. Ep. 97 (al. 8), ad 
Demetriadem: Sanctum virginum propositum et coelestis angelorumque familiae gloriam 
quarundam non bene se agentium nomen infamat. Quibus aperte dicendum est, ut aut 
nubant, si se non possunt continere, aut contineat, si nolunt nubere (see above § 73, note - 
6). Augustinus de Bono viduit. c.10: Qui dicunt talium nuptias non esse nuptias, sed 
potius adulteria, non mihi videntur satis acute ac diligenter considerare quid dicant.—Fit 
autem per hanc minus consideratam opinionem, qua putant lapsarum a sancto proposito 
feminarum, si nupserint, non esse conjugia, non parvum malum, ut a maritis separentur 
uxores, quasi adulterae sint, non uxorés: et cum volunt eas separatas reddere continentiae, 
faciunt maritos earum adulteros veros, cum suis uxoribus vivis alteras duxerint. Concil. 
Chalced. can. 16 : Tlap0évav éavrnyv dvabeicay tO deorbTy Oe GoabTwe¢ dé Kai wovalovra, 
uh ecivar yéu@ mpocoutreiv: ei d& ye ebpeOeiev toito novodvtec, EoTwoav dKowvdvytor - 
Gpioaper 8 Exerv Ty addevtiay Tijg én’ adbroig GrAavOpwriac Tov KaTa TOTOV éExicKoToV. 

1 On this account Jerome translated the rule of Pachomius into Latin, as he says in 
the preface (Luc. Holstenii Codex regularum, i. 59), propterea quod plurimi Latinorum 
habitant in Thebaidis coenobiis et in -monasterio Metanoeae, qui ignorant aegyptiacum 
graecumque ‘sermonem. 

2, Augustini Confess. viii. 6 ; Erat monasterium Mediolani plenum bonis fratribus extra 


CHAP. IV.—MONACHISM. § 96. IN THE WEST. 409 


the same time convents for both sexes were founded in Rome,? 
notwithstanding the unfavorable opinion of the people ; and the 
smal] islands near the coast,‘ Gallinaria (Galinara), Gorgon 


urbis moenia sub Ambrosio nutritore. Id. de Moribus eccles. cath. i. 33: Vidi ego diver 
sorium sanctorum Mediolani non paucorum hominum, quibus unus Presbyter praeerat, vir 
optimus et doctissimus. 

3 Hieron. Ep. 96, ad Principiam de Jaudibus Marcellae, a.p. 412: Nulla eo tempore 
nobilium feminarum voverat Romae propositam Monachorum, nec audebat propter rei — 
novitatem ignominiosum, ut tunc putabatur, et vile in populis nomen assumere. Haec 
(Marcella) ab Alexandrinis sacerdotibus, Papaque Athanasio et postea Petro, qui per- 
secutionem Arianae haereseos declinantes, quasi ad tutissimum communionis suae portum 
Romam confugerant, vitam beati Antonii adhuc tunc viventis, monasterioruamque in 
Thebaide Pachumii et virginum ac viduarum didicit disciplinam—Hanc multos post 
annos imitata est Sophronia, et aliae——Hujus amicitiis fruita est Paula venerabilis: In 
hujus cubiculo nutrita Eustochium, virginitatis decus, ut facilis aestimatio sit, qualis 
magistra, ubi tales discipulae.—Anudivimus te illius adhaesisse consortio, et nunquam ab 
illa—recessisse—Suburbanus ager vobis pro Monasterio fuit, et rus electum pro solitudine. 
Multoque ita vixistis tempore, ut, ex imitatione vestri, conversatione multarum gaudere- 
mus Romam factam Jerosolymam. Crebra virginum monasteria, Monachorum innumera- 
bilis multitudo, ut pro frequentia servientium Deo, quéd prius ignominiae fuerat, esset 
postea gloriae. Epist.54 ad Pammachium, a.p. 398: Pammachius meus—épyiorparnyoc 
Monachorum. Augustin. de Moribus eccl. cath. (388, written in Rome) i. 33: Romae plura 
(diversoria sanctorum) cognovi, in quibus singuli gravitate atque prudentia et divina 
scientia praepollentes caeteris secum habitantibus praesunt, christiana caritate, sanctitate 
et libertate viventibus. Ne ipsi quidem cuiquam onerosi sunt, sed Orientis more et 
Apostoli Pauli auctoritate, manibus suis se transigunt. Jejunia etiam prorsus incredibilia 
multos exercere didici, non quotidie semel sub noctem reficiendo corpus, quod est usque- 
quaque usitatissimum, sed continuum triduum vel amplius saepissime sine cibo et potu 
ducere: neque hoc in viris tantum, sed etiam in foeminis, quibus item, multis viduis et 
virginibus simul habitantibus, et lana ac tela victum quaeritantibus, praesunt singulae 
. gravissimae probatissimaeque, non tantum in instituendis componendisque moribus, sed 
etiam instituendis mentibus peritae atque paratae. These fasts which were manifestly 
prejudicial to the health, stirred up the people. At the burying of Blaesilla, a daughter 
of Paula, a young nun, supposed to have been killed by fasting, a.D. 384, the people cried 
out (Hieronymi Ep. 22, al. 25, ad Paulam): Quousque genus detestabile monachorum non 
urbe pellitur? non lapidibus obruitur? non praecipitatur in fluctus ? 

* Ambrosii Hexaémeron, iii. c. 5: Quid enumerem insulas, quas velut monilia pleramque 
praetexit, id quibus ii, qui se abdicant intemperantiae saecularis illecebris, fido conti- 
nentiae proposito, eligant mundum latere, et vitae hujus declinare dubios anfractus ? 
Hieronymus Ep. 84 (al. 30), de Morte Fabiolae about 400: Angusta misericordiae ejus 
Roma fuit. Peragrabat ergo insulas et totum Etruscum mare, Volscorumque provinciam 
et reconditos curvorum littorum sinus, in quibus monachorum consistunt chori, vel proprio 
corpore, vel transmissa per viros sanctos ac fideles munificentia circumibat. Comp. ie 
itinerarium of the heathen Rutilii Numatiani (A.D. 417), i. 439, ss.: 

Processu pelagi jam se Capraria tollit, 
Squallet lucifugis insula plena viris. 
Ipsi se monachos Grajo cognomine dicunt, etc. 


and respecting Gorgon, ibid. v. 517, ss. : 


Aversor scopulos, damni monumenta recentis: 
Perditus hic vivo funere civis erat. 

Noster enim nuper, juvenis majoribus amplis, 
Nec censu inferior, conjugiove minor, 
Impulsus furiis, homines divosque reliquit, 


% 


{ 


410 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I—aA.D. 324-451. 


(Gorgona), Capraria (Capraia), Palmaria (Palmarola), on the 
west coast of Italy and the islands on the Dalmatian coast,’ 
became important seats of monastic establishments. Martin® 
first established in Gaul a monastery at Poitctiers;’ and after- 
ward, when he became bishop of T'wronum (375-400), another 
in that city.* About 400, Honoratus founded the celebrated 
monastery on the island Lerins (now St. Honorat).? Others 
rose on the island Lero’ (St. Marguerite), and the Stoechades” 
on the south coast of Gaul. John Cassian,'? who was educat- 
ed arnong the Egyptian monks, founded two cloisters in Massilia 
(after 410). He died after 432. In Africa, notwithstanding 
Augustine’s most zealous encomiums on monachism, it found 
acceptance almost entirely with the lower classes alone ;** and 
the hatred of it was kept up there longer than in any other 
place." 


Et turpent latebram credulus exsul amat. 
Infelix putat illuvie coelestia pasci ; 

Seque premit laesis saevior ipse Deis. 
Num, rogo, deterior Circaeis secta venenis? 
Tune mutabantur corpora, nunc animi. 

5 Hieron. Ep. 92, ad Julianum: Exstruis monasteria, et multus a te per insulas Dal- 
matiae Sanctorum numerus sustentatur. 

§ Severi Sulpicii b. Martini vita. Epistolae iii. de Martino Dialogi. iii. de virtutibus 

“monach. orientalium et b. Martini. 

7 The monasterium Locociagense, Gregor. Turon. de miraculis 8. Martini, iv. 30. 

8 Majus monasterium (Marmoutier). 

9 A. F. Silfverberg Hist. Monasterii Lerinensis usque ad ann. 731 enarrata. Hayn. 
1834. 8. The life of Honoratus, who became bishop of Arles in 426, by his disciple and 
successor Hilary, may be seen in Acta SS. ad d. 16. Jan. 

10 Plinius Nat. Hist. iii. 5, calls the two islands Lerina and Lero, Strabo, iv. 1, 10, 7 
TlAavacia kai Afpwv. In later authors (Sidonii Carm. xvi. 104, Ennodius in vita Epi- 
phanii) they are called Lerinus and Lerus. 

11 To the founders of Monachism on these islands, viz., Jovinianus, Minervius, Leontius, 
and Theodoretus, Cassian dedicated his last seven Collations, as he had done the preceding 
seven to Honoratus and Eucherius. Cf. Praefatt. ad coll. xi. et xiii. 

12 Respecting him see § 87, vote 48. 

13 Augustin. de Opere Monsch. c. 22: Nunc autem veniunt plerumque ad hance profes- 
sionem servitutis Dei et ex conditione servili, vel etiam liberti, vel propter hoc a dominis 
liberati sive liberandi, et ex vita rusticana, et ex opificum exercitatione et plebejo labore. 
Neque enim apparet, utrum ex proposito servitutis Dei venerint, an vitam inopem et 
laboriosam fugientes vacui pasci atque vestiri voluerint, et insuper honorari ab eis, a qui- 
bus contemni conterique consueverant. 

14 Salvianus Massiliensis (about 450) de Gubernat. Dei, viii. 4: Ita igitur et in monachis. 
—Afrorum probatur.odium, quia inridebant scilicet, quia maledicebant, quia insectabantur, 
quia detestabantur, quia omnia in illos paene fecerunt, quae in salvatorem nostrum Judae- 
orum impietas. Intra Africae civitates, et maxime intra Carthaginis muros, palliatum et 
pallidum et recisis comarum fluentium jubis usque ad cutem tonsum videre tam infelix 
ille populus quam infidelis sine convitio atque execratione vix poterat. Et si quando ali- 
quis Dei servus, aut de Aegyptiorum coenobiis, aut de sacris Hierusalem locis, aut de 
sanctis eremi venerandisque secretis ad urbem illam officio divini operis accessit, simul 


CHAP. IV.—MONACHISM. § 96. IN THE WEST. 411 


The mode of life of the western monks was far less strict than 
that of the eastern; partly in consequence of the climate, and 
partly out of regard to the general feeling of the people.’ An- 
other important point of difference was that the monks in the 
west soon abandoned mechanical labor.’® . Here also there was 
not uniformity among them.’’ Besides the monks and nuns 
who lived in convents, some wandered about,'* others led an 
ascetic life, occasionally at considerable expense, in the cities,’ 
others imitated the most striking asceticism of the orientals, 
frequently indeed. only in appearance.” 


ut populo apparuit, contumelias, sacrilegia et maledictiones excepit. Nec solum hoc, sed 
improbissimis flagitiosorum hominum cachinnis et detestantibus ridentium sibilis quasi 
taureis caedebatur-. 

15 Sever. Sulp. Dial. i. 8: Edacitas in Graecis gula est, in. Gallis natura. Cassian de 
Institut. coenob. i. 11: Nam neque caligis nos, neque colobiis, seu una tunica esse con- 
tentos hiemis permittit asperitas: et parvissimi cuculli velamen, vel melotes gestatio 
derisum potius, quam aedificationem ullam videntibus comparabit. 

16 Sev. Sulp. Vita Mart. c. 10, of the monastery at Turonum: Ars ibi exceptis scriptori- 
bus nulla habebatur: cui tamen operi minor aetas deputabatur: majores orationi vaca- 
bant. Yet Augustine de Opere monachorum (cf. Retractt. ii. c. 21), and Cassian de Instit. 
coenob. lib. x. recommended the monks to resume manual labor. 

17 As in the east, so there were also in the west, tot propemodum typi ac regulae, quot 
cellae ac monasteria (Cassian. Institt. ii. c. 2). ‘After Rufinus had translated the rules of 
St. Basil into Latin, they were observed in many monasteries. 

i8 Cassianus de Institutione coenobiorum, x. 23: In his regionibus nulla videmus monas- 
teria tanta fratrum celebritate fundata (as in Egypt), quia nec operum suorum facultatibus 
falciuntur, ut possint in eis jugiter perdurare: et si eis suppeditari quoquomodo valeat 
sufficientia victus alterius largitate, voluptas tamen otii et pervagatio cordis diutius ‘eos in 
loco perseverare non patitur. Augustin. de Opere monach. c. 28: Callidissimus hostis tam 
multos hypocritas sub habitu monachorum usquequaque dispersit, circumeuntes provin- 
cias, nusquam missos, nusquam fixos, nusquam stantes, nusquam sedentes. Alii membra 
martyrum, si tamen martyrum, venditant, alii fimbrias et phylacteria sua magnificant: et 
omnes petunt, omnes exigunt aut sumtus lucrosae egestatis, aut simulatae pretium sane 
titatis. C.31: Illi venalem circumferentes hypocrisim, timent ne vilior habeatur tonsa 
sanctitas quam comata, ut videlicet qui eos videt, antiquos illos quos legimus cogitet, 
Samuelem et caeteros qui non tondebantur. 

19 Hieron. Ep. 95 (al. 4), ad Rusticum: Vidi ego quosdam, qui postquam renunciavere 
saeculo vestimentis duntaxat et vocis professione, non rebus, nihil de pristina conversa- 
tione mutarunt. Res familiaris magis aucta quam imminuta. Eadem ministeria servu- 
loram, idem apparatus convivii. In vitro et patella fictili auram comeditur, et inter turbas 
et examina ministrorum nomen sibi vindicant solitarii. 

_ 20 Hier. Ep. 18 (al. 22), ad Eustochium: Viros quoque fuge, quos videris catenatos, qui- 
bus foeminei contra Apostolum crines, hircorum barba, nigrum pallium, et nudi patientia 
frigoris pedes. Haec omnia argumenta sunt diaboli. Talem olim Antonium, talem nuper 
Sophroniam Roma congemuit. Qui postquam nobilium introierunt domos, et deceperunt 
mulierculas oneratas peccatis, semper discentes, et nunquam ad scientiam veritatis per- 
venientes, tristitiam simulant, et quasi longa jejunia furtivis noctium cibis protrabunt. 


’ 


Al? SECOND PERIOD—DIV. L—A.D. 324-451. 


§ 97. 
RELATION OF THE MONKS TO THE CLERGY. 


The monks, as such, belonged to the laity, the convents 
forming separate churches whose presbyters were usually abbots? 
standing in the same dependent relation to bishops as did the 
other churches with their people. As monachism was consid- - 
ered the perfection of. Christianity, it was natural to choose 
clergymen from the monks. At first the stricter monks were 
much dissatisfied with this arrangement ;* but the aversion to 
it soon ceased, and even at the end of the fourth century, mo- 
nastic life was considered to be the usual preparation, and mona- 
chism the nursery for the clergy, especially for bishops.’ 

The idea of transferring monachism, as much as possible, en-— 
tirely to the clergy, was natural in these circumstances ; and it 
was especially adopted in the west. The venerable Paphnutius 
had prevented the celibacy of the clergy from being enacted as 
an ecclesiastical law, in Nicaea;* but now this regulation took 


1 Alteserra Ascetic. ii. 2. iii. 8. vii. 2. 

2 Cassian. de Instit. coenob. xi. 17: Quapropter haec est antiquitas patrum permanens 
nunc usque sententia, quam proferre sine mea confusione non. potero, qui nec germanam 
vitare potui, nee episcopi evadere manus, omnimodo monachum fugere debere mulieres et 
episcopos. Neuter enim sinit eum, quem semel suae familiaritati devinxerit, vel quieti 
cellulae ulterius operam dare, vel divinae theoriae per sanctarum rerum intuitum purissi- 
mis oculis inhaerere. Hence monks were not seldom ordained against their will Epiphan. 
Ep. ad Joh. Hierosol. Theodoret. Hist. relig. c. 13. Cf. Bingham, lib. iv. c. 7 (vol- ii. p. 
189, ss.). 

3 Hieron. Ep. 95, ad Rusticum: Ita age et vive in monasterio, ut clericus esse merearis. 
A law of Arcadius, a.D. 398 (Cod. Theod. xvi. ii. 32): Si quos forte Episcopi deesse sibi 
Clericos arbitrantur, ex Monachorum numero rectius ordinabunt. Against the excess of 
this principle see Augustini Ep. 60: Ordini clericorum fit indignissima injuria, si deser- 
tores monasteriorum ad militiam clericatus eligantur :—nisi forte—vulgares de nobis joca- 
buntur dicentes : malus monachus bonus clericus est. Nimis dolendum, si ad tam ruino- 
sam superbiam monachos surrigamus, et tam gravi contumelia clericos dignos putemus; 
—cum aliquando etiam bonus monachus vix bonum clericum faciat; si adsit ei sufficiens 
continentia, et teamen desit instructio necessaria, aut personae regularis integritas. 

* Socrates, i. 11: ’Edéxe: toi¢ éxtoxdérowg viuov veapov ei¢ THv éxKAgoiar cicdépetr, 
Sorte rove lepwpévore, Aéyw 08 Erickdrove Kal mpecBuTépove Kai diakévovc, uy ovyKabeb- 
dew Taig yapetaic, dc Ett Aaixot évteg Hydyovro (just as Can. Mliberit. 33, see Div, I. 
§ 73, note 14, and therefore proposed probably by Hosius). Kai éxei rept rotrov BovAei- 
eo8at mpovnetto, dvavacrag év méow Tod ovAAbyou Tdv éxicKérur 6 Iadvoirioc, EB6a 
uakpa, py Bapdy Cvyov éxiOeivar toic lepwpévotc dvdpdot, Tizsoy eivat kai Thy Koitny Kat 
abrov duiavtoyv tov yduov (Hebr. xiii. 4) Aéywor, uy TH imepBoAR THe dxpiBelag waAAOv 
thy exAgoiay mpooBAdpuwo.: ob yap wavtac Oivacbar dépery tio Grabelag THY doKy- 


eHAP. IV.-MONACHISM. §.97- 413. 


yoot in the west, first by the influence of Sirictws, bishop of 
Rome (385),? whom several councils soon followed. Eusebius, 
bishop of Vercellae (f 371), and Awgustine went still farther, 
and united with their clergy in adopting a strictly monastic life,® 


a.v, obd? lowe dvAayOfcecOar tiv cudpoctyyy tig éExdorov yaueTig (owdpootyyny dz 
sxdAec Kal Tie voui“ov yvvatkde THY ovvédevoty)* apKeicbai Te Tov PbdcavTa KAjpov 
Tuxeiv, unkéte ent yduov épxecbar, kata THY THC éxxAnoiacg dpyaiav wapddoow: pHATEe 
Liv axolebyvvcbar Tait, iv Gxak ibn mporepov Aaixoc dy hydyeto. Kai rair’ éAeyev 
umelpog Ov. yduov, Kai aA elmety yuvaikéc. "Ex raidd¢g yap év doxnrnpiw dverté- 
Opaxro, kat éxt cudpociry, ei nai Tic GAAog, mEptBdnroc Hv. Tleibetar nag 6 TGv lepwx 
uévwv ciAhoyoe Toig ILagvovriov Adyoig* d16 Kai THY TEpi TobTOV CATHOLY drEeciynoay, 
TH yvoun Tov Bovdopévar aréxecbar tie butAiag TGv yaueTOv Katadeipavtec. So also 
Sozom. i. 23. Gelasii Hist. Conc. Nic. ii. 32, and Historia tripartita, ii. 14.—The truth of 
it is doubted by Baronius, Bellarminus, Jo. Stilting (Act. SS. Sept. t. iii. p. 784, ss.). On 
the other side, Natalis Alexander Hist. eccl. saec. iv. diss. 19. Calixtus de Conj. cler. ed. 
Henke, p- 213, ss. 

5 Epistola ad Himerium Episc. Tarraconensem, c.7: li vero, qui illiciti privilesit ex- 
cusatione nituntur, ut sibi asserant veteri hoc lege concessum : noverint se ab omni eccle- 
siastico honore, quo indigne usi sunt, apostolicae sedis auctoritate dejectos—Quilibet 
episcopus presbyter atque diaconus, quod non optamus, deinceps fuerit talis inventus, jam 
nunc sibi omnem per nos indulgentiae aditum intelligat obseratum : quia ferro necesse est 
excidantur vulnera, quae fomentorum non senserint medicinam.—C. 9: Quicumque itaque 
Se ecclesiae vovit obsequiis a sta infantia, ante pubertatis annos baptizari, et lectorum 
debet ministerio sociari. Qui ab accessu adolescentiae usque ad tricesimum aetatis 
annum, si probabiliter vixerit, una tantum et ea, quam virginem communi per sacerdotem 
benedictione perceperit, uxore contentus, acolythus et subdiaconus esse debebit ; postque 
ad diaconii gradum, si se ipse primitus continentia praeeunte dignum probarit, aocedat. 
Unde si ultra quinque annos laudabiliter ministrarit, congrue presbyterium consequatur. 
Exinde, post decennium, episcopalem cathedram poterit adipisci, si tamen per haec tem- 

_pora integritas vitae ac fidei ejus fuerit approbata—C. 13: Monachos quoque, quos tamen 
morum gravitas et vitae ac fidei institutio sancta commendat, clericorum officiis aggregari 
et optamus et volumus. In the middle ages it was constantly admitted that this ler 
Ecclesiastica had been unknown to the primitive church. See Calixtus, l.c. p. 3, ss. 304. 
Many, however, believed it to be the meaning of Conc. Nicaeni, can. 3 (according to 
Dionys. Exig. translation: Interdixit per omnia magna synodus, non episcopo, non pres- 
bytero, non diacono, nec alicui omnino qui in clero est, licere subintroductam habere mu- 
lierem, nisi forte aut matrem, aut sororem, aut amitam, vel eas tantum personas, quae 
suspicionem effugiunt). Cf. Aelfrici canones, 4.D. 970 (Wilkins. Concil. Magn. Brit. i. 
p- 250), c. 5: At the Nicene synod statwerunt omnes unanimi consensu, quod neque epis- 
copus, neque presbyter, neque diaconus, nec ullus verus canonicus habeat in domo sua 
txorem aliquam, nisi matrem, etc. Benedictus VIII. in Conc. Ticinensi, between 1014 and 
1024 (ap. Mansi, xix. p. 344): Nicaeni patres non solum connubium, sed etiam cum muli- 
eribus habitationem clericis omnibus interdicunt. So also Alfonsus a Castro (t 1550), tit. 
‘Sacerdotium ; Consuetudo, juxta quam matrimonio alligatus promovebatur ad sacerdotium, 
inyaluit usque ad tempora Nicaeni concilii, in quo, ut fertur, generali decreto statutum 
est, ne aliquis uxorem habens consecretur sacerdos. Quod statutum cum ab aliquibus 
minime ut decebat observaretur, Siricius Papa de hac re illos acerbissime reprehendit. 
The Jesuits were the first, in the sixteenth century, who maintained, in opposition to the 
Protestants, that the celibacy of the priests originated in apostolic times. Calixtus, l. c. 
p- 10, ss. 28, ss. J. Gf. Korner vom Colibat der Geistlichen. Leipzig. 1784.8. J. A. Thei- 
ner u. A. Theiner die Einfiihrung der erzwungenen Ehelosigkeit b. d. christl. Geistlichen 
u. ihre Folgen. Altenburg. 1828. 2 Bde. 8. 

6 Respecting Eusebius see Ambros. Ep. 63, ad Vercellenses, § 66: Haec enim primus. 


414 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 324-451. 


though at first they found no imitators. But we may see how 
difficult it was to carry out the law of celibacy, though Jerome, 
Ambrose, and Augustine, strongly advocated it, from the fre- 
quent repetition of the law, and the mildness with which it was 
found necessary to punish transgressors.’ Still Leo the Great 
extended the requisition even to the sub-deacons (subdiaconi).* 
In the east, on the other hand, the Eustathians were opposed 
for their very rejection of marriage in the case of priests,’ and 
no law of celibacy was generally adopted. It was the custom, 
indeed, toward the end of the fourth century, in several prov- 


in Occidentis partibus diversa inter se Eusebius sanctae memoriae conjunxit, ut et in 
civitate positus instituta Monachorum teneret, et Ecclesiam regeret jejunii sobrietate. 
Maximi Ep. Taurinensis (about 422) Sermo ix. de 8. Eusebio, in Muratorii Anecdotis, t. iv. 
p- 88: Ut universo Clero suo spiritaliuam institutionum speculum se coeleste praeberet, 
omnes illos secum intra unius septum habitaculi congregavit, ut quorum erat unum atque 
indivisum in religione propositum, fieret vita victusque communis. Quatenus in illa 
sanctissima societate vivendi invicem sibi essent conversationis suae et judices et cus- 
todes, etc. Cf. Sermo vii. p. 82.—Respecting Augustine see Augustini vita auct. Possidio, 
c. 5: Factus ergo presbyter monasterium inter ecclesiam mox instituit, et cum Dei servis 
vivere coepit secundum modum et regulam sub sanctis Apostolis constitutam, maxime ut 
nemo quidquam proprium in illa societate haberet, sed eis essent omnia communia. After 
he had become bishop, cap. 11: In monasterio Deo servientes Ecclesiae Hipponensi clerici 
ordinari coeperunt. Ac deinde—ex monasterio, quod per illum memorabilem virum et 
esse et crescere coeperat, magno desiderio poscere et accipere episcopos et clericos pax 
Ecclesiae atque unitas et coepit primo, et postea consecuta est. Nam ferme decem— 
sanctos—viros continentes—b. Augustinus diversis Ecclesiis—rogatus dedit. Similiterque 
et ipsi ex illorum sanctorum proposito venientes—monasteria instituerunt, et—caeteris 
Ecclesiis promotos fratres ad suscipiendum sacerdotium praestiterant. Comp. August. 
Sermones ii. de moribus Clericorum (at an earlier period Sermo 49 and 50 de diversis, in 
the Benedictine edition, Sermo 355 and 356), ex. gr. Sermo, i. c. 1: Nostis omnes,—sic 
nos vivere in ea domo, quae dicitur domus episcopii, ut quantum possumus imitemur eos 
sanctos, de quibus loquitur liber Actuum Apostolorum: Nemo dicebat aliquid proprium, 
sed erant illis omnia communia,—volui habere in ista domo episcopii mecum monasterium 
clericorum. Ejusd. Epis. 20, 149, 245. Cf. Thomassinus, P. i. lib. iii. c.2 and 3. It isa 
different thing when other monks, elevated to be bishops, as Martin of Turonum, had about 
them establishments of monks, and continued the monastic life in them. 

7 Siricii Ep. ad Episc. Afr. (a.D. 386) c. 3. Conc. Carthag. (390) can. 2. Innocent. I. 
Ep. ad Vitricium (404) cap. 9. Conc. Taurin. (397) can, 8. Carthag. v. (398) can. 3. 
Toletan. i. (400) can. 1, ete. Conc. Turonense i. (461) can. 2: Licet a patribus nostris 
emissa auctoritate id fuerit constitutum, ut, quicunque sacerdos vel levita filiorum pro- 
creationi operam dare fuisset convictus, a communione dominica abstineretur: nos tamen 
huic districtioni moderationem adhibentes, et justam constitutionem mollientes, id decrevi- 
mus, ut sacerdos vel levita conjugali concupiscentiae inhaerens, vel a filiorum procreatione 
non desinens ad altiorem gradum non ascendat, neque sacrificium Deo offere vel plebi 
ministrare praesumat. 

8 Leo Ep. 14 ad Anastas. Episc. Thessalon. (a.D. 446) c. 4. Still this was by no means 
general till the times of Gregory the Great. See Calixtus, 1. c. p. 380, ss. 

® See above § 93, note 39. To this refers also Can. Apost. 5: "Exicxoroc, 7 IIpec- 
Bbtepoc, 7 Atdxovog tiv éavtod yuvaixa ph éxBad2étw mpoddce: ebAaBeiac- édv 62 
ExBaAdn, ddopilécOw: Eximévwv 62 Kabaipeicbw. Comp. Drey iber die Constitut. und 
Canones der Apostel, S. 339. 


CHAP. V.—HISTORY OF PUBLIC WORSHIP. § 98. 415 


inces, to select the unmarried for bishops; and in some of these 
this was extended even to the clergy in general,’® but in most 
parts, all clergymen had the liberty of living in wedlock.” 





FIFTH CHAPTER. 


HISTORY OF PUBLIC WORSHIP. 
§ 98. 


The church had triumphed over heathenism. It had acquired 
riches, external influence, and power. ‘The effect of this was 
seen in the increasing splendor of its ceremonial. At the same 
time, a great number of those who now pressed into the church 
brought with them that purely external tendency peculiar to. 
heathen religions, which turned on the sensuous forms of wor- 
ship, partly with a one-sided aesthetic interest, and partly 


10 In the chief countries of Monachism. Hieronym. adv. Vigilantium: Quid facient 
Orientis ecclesiae? quid Aegypti et sedis Apostolicae? quae aut virgines clericos acci- 
piunt, aut continentes, aut si uxores habuerint, mariti esse desistunt.. Epiphan. Haer. 59, 
§ 4. Expos. fidei Cath. § 21. Synesius, when about to be bishop of Ptolemais, wrote, 
among other things, even to his brother Euoptius (Ep. 105): ’Ewoi 6 te Oedc, 6 Te vomoe, 
h te iepa Oeodidov yelp yuvaixa éxidédwke* Tpoayopetw toivuy dract Kai waptipoyat, 
O¢ éy@ tabTn¢ obte GAAoTpHotopar KaGdraég, obte We powxd¢ abTH AdOpa cvvécopat’ Td 
bev yap hKoTa evaeBec, TO dé HxLoTa Voummov* GAAG BovAgoouai Te Kai ebfouar, cvyvd wot 
mavu cat ypnota yevéobat ratdia. Comp. above, § 84, note 33. Clausen de Synesio, p. 119. 

11 Examples of married bishops in the fourth century. Calixtus, p. 258, ss. Theiner, i. 
S. 263, ss. Gregory of Nazianzum was born when his father was a priest, for he makes 
him say, Carmen de vita sua, v. 512: 


Otrw tocotrov éxusuétpnxac Giov, 

"Ooo biq7AGe Ovotdv éuoi ypdvoc. 
(Evasions of Papebrochius, Act. SS. Maji, t. ii. p. 370, against Tillemont, who explained 
honestly the Jesuit Mémoires de Trevoux, 1707, Avril, p. 711. Cf. Calixtus, l. c. p. 261, ss. 
Ullmann’s Gregor v. Naz. 8. 551, ss.) Whether Gregory of Nyssa was married is matter 
of dispute. Rupp (Gregor’s v. Nyssa Leben u. Meinungen, S. 24), with Clemencet and 
others, denies it. Nicephorus Callistus first mentions this marriage; Tillemont also 
recognizes it. St. P. Heyns Disp. de Gregorio Nysseno, Lugd. Bat. 1835. 4. p. 6, defends 
it at length, and has even found a son called Basil. Socrates, v. 22: "Eyvav dé éya 
kai &repov &0¢ év Oecoaiia. Tevduevoc xAnpikoc éxet; Rv véuw yaujoacg mpiv KAnpiKoc 
yévntat, eta TO KAnpiKde yevéoOat ovyKxabevdjoac aitH, dmoKApuKTog yiverat* Tov ev 
dvaToAq navTav yrdun arexyouévor, kal Tov éxickérwr, ei kai BoddAowvto, ob pv 
avayky vouov TodTO ToLtodvTwv. TloAAol yap aitév év TO Kkatod tHE émtoKoTAG Kae 
maidac &k THS vomiing yaweTHe meToLfKaaLy. 


416 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D.. 324-451. 


with a superstitious veneration. Even those who were capable 
of higher views yielded to this tendeney, either that the pagans 
might be the more readily won over to Christianity, or from a 
desire to show honor to a supposed pious intention.’ But in 
proportion as the internal life evaporated from the Church, and 
its external reputation increased, the more usual did it become 
to impress the character of a law externally binding on ecclesi- 
astical usages which had been gradually developed. Thus the 
‘entire ecclesiastical life was. overburdened with forms which 
were merely tolerated at first, but finally converted into laws.’ 


§ 99. 


NEW OBJECTS OF WORSHIP. 


Jo. Dallaeus adversus Latinorum de cultus religiosi objecto traditionem. Genevae. 1664. 4, 


Martyrdom,' which presented so strong a contrast to the luke- 
warmness of the present time, was the more highly venerated 
in proportion to its remoteness.” The heathen converts natu- 
rally enough transferred to the martyrs the honors they had 


i This irruption of heathen usages into the church is acknowledged as early as Baptista 
Mantuanus in Fastis mense Febr. et Novembre, Beatus Rhenanus ad Tertull. contra 
Marc. lib. v. and de Corona militis, Polydorus Vergilius de Rerum inventoribus, lib. v. c. 1, 
Baronius ann. 58, § 76, ann. 200, § 5. It has been shown more at length by (Mussard) les 
Conformitez des Ceremonies modernes avec les anciennes. (Londres) 1667. 8 (new edition, 
Amsterd. 1744); Conyers Middleton a letter from Rome, showing an exact conformity be- 
tween Popery and Paganism (London. 1755. 8); Jo. Marangonius Delle cose gentilesche e 
profane transportate ad uso e ad ornamento delle chiese. Rom. 1744. 4 (comp. the con- 
tinuation of the same, 1752, 8.511, ss.); Ge. Christ. Hamberger Enarratio rituum, quos 
Romana ecclesia a majoribus suis gentilibus in sua sacra transtulit. Gotting. 1751 (re- 
printed in J. P. Berg Museum Duisburgense, t. i. P. ii. p. 363, ss.). John James Blunt 
Vestiges of ancient Manners and Customs, discoverable in modérn Italy and Sicily. 
London. 1823. 

2 Leo M. Sermo 77, de Jejun. Pentecost. 2: Dubitandum non est, quicquid ab Ecclesia 
in consuetudinem devotionis est receptum, de traditione apostolica, et de Sancti Spiritus 
prodire doctrina. 

1 On the increased veneration paid to martyrs comp. Sagittarius de Natalitiis mar- 
tyrum, cap. 5, § 19, ss. Bossuet’s Gesch. v. Welt. u. v. Religion, fortgesetzt von J. A. 
Cramer. Erste Fortf. 8. 493, ss. Dritte Fortf. 8. 285, ss. 329, ss. ~ 

2 To which even the apologists of the day contributed. Eusebius Praep. evang. xiii..c. 
11, cites a passage of Plato concerning the worship of demons, and then continues : Kai 
Taira d& dpudter exi rH TOY OcogiAdy TEAtvTTZ, ob¢ oTpaTLGrag Tig GAnOod¢ eboeBeiac 
obk Gv audproug eixav, mapaAauBdvecda. “Obev Kai éxi tic Onxag abrdv Foc jyiv 
Taptévat, Kal Tac ebyac Tapa TabTaLe ToLetoOaL, Tivay Te TAG waKapiac abT&y pvyxde, w¢ 
evAdywe Kal tobTwr b¢’ hudy yryvouévev. Comp. below, note 33. 


CHAP.—YV. PUBLIC WORSHIP. $99. WORSHIP OF SAINTS. 417 


been accustomed to pay their heroes.’ This took place the more. 
readily as the scrupulous aversion to excessive veneration of the 
creature died away in the church after the victory over heathen- 

ism; and the despotic form of government became accustomed 
to a slavish respect for the powerful.‘ Thus the eld custom of | 
holding meetings for public worship at the graves of the mar- 

tyrs now gave occasion to the erection of altars and churches 
(Mapzipiov, Memoria)? over them. In Egypt, the Christians, 
following an old popular custom, began to preserve the corpses 
of men reputed to be saints in their houses;® and since the 


% Respecting the pagan belief that the relics of distinguished men afforded protection to 
cities and countries, see Lobeck Aglaophamus, t. i. p. 280, s. Thus Alius Aristides (a 
rhetorician who lived about 170 A.D.) Orat. ii. ad Platonem, ed. Dindorf vol. ii. p. 230, calls 
the Greeks who had fallen in battle against the Persians, broxoviove Tivag godanac Kai 
ouripac TGV ‘EAARvav, GAesixdkove Kal wavta dyabotc, Kai preobat ye Thy xGpav ob 
xeipov 7) Tov tv Kwhwv@ keiuevov Oidirovy, 7 ek Tig GAA0Gi mov Tig ydpac év KatpH Toig 
(Got Keicbat mexiotevta:. Respecting Gdipus, Valerius Maximus, y. 3, externa 3: 
Oedipodis ossa—inter ipsum Areopagum—et—Minervae arcem honore arae decorata, 
quasi sacrosancta, colis. In Greece worship was paid especially to the founders of cities, 
which were built for the most part over their graves. Thus Autolycus was worshiped in 
Sinope, Tenes in Tenedos, Zneas by the Aneates (Liv. xl. 4). See others noticed in 
Voss de Idolol. i. 13, comp. Thucydides, v. 11, concerning Brasidas: Of ’AugiroAirat, 
mepréptavres abrod 76 pvnpeiov, os hpwt te évréuvovot Kai Tid¢ OedéKacw La tod Kai 
érnoiove Ovaiac, Kai tiv arotkiay bc olkioTR 4 mpooéPecar. 

* Compare the honors paid to the emperors: their edicts were termed atstnas sacra 
coelestia: their statues were honored by adoration and frankincense (Zorn, in Miscell. 
Groning. vol. i. p. 186, ss.). Consultationum Zachaei Christ. et Apollonii Philos. (after 
408) lib. i. c. 28 (in d’Archery Spicileg..i. p. 12): Apollonius: Cur imagines hominum 
vel ceris pictas, vel metallis defictas sub Regum reverentia etiam publica adoratione 
veneramini, et, ut ipsi praedicatis, Deo tantam honorem debitum etiam hominibus datis ? 
Zacheus : Istud quidem nec debeo probare nec possum, quia evidentibus Dei dictis non 
‘Angelos, nec quoslibet coeli ac terrae vel aéris principatus adorare permittimur. Divini 
enim speciale hoc nomen officii est, et altior omni terrena veneratione reverentia: sed 
sicut in hujusmodi malum primum adulatio homines impulit, sic nunc ab errore consuetudo 
vix revocat; in quo tamen incautum obsequium, non aliquem divinum deprehenditis 
cultum. Sed propter similitudinem amabilium vultuum gaudia intenta plus faciunt, quam 
, hi forte exigant, quibus defertur, aut perfungi oporteat deferentes; et licet hanc incautioris 
obsequii consuetudinem districtiores.horreant Christiani, nec prohibere desinant sacer- 
dotes, non tamen Deus dicitur cujus effigies salutatur, nec adolentur thure imagines, aut 
- eolendae aris superstant, sed memoria pro meritis exponuntur, ut exemplum factoruam 
probabilium posteris praestent, aut praesentes pro abusione castigent. A law of Theo-— 
dosius Il. A.D. 425 (Cod. Theod. xv. iv. 1): Si quando nostrae statuae vel imagines 
eriguntur,—adsit judex sine adorationis ambitioso fastigio,—excedens cultura hominum 
dignitatem superno numini reservetur. Cf. de Rhoer Dissertt. de effectu relig. christ. in 
jurisprad. Rom. p. 41, ss. 

5 So called at first by Eusebius de vita Const. iii. 48. So also Constantine, on no ighies 
authority, indeed, than the liber pontificalis, vita 34, Sylvestri, written about the year 870, 
is said to have built the basilics in Rome over the graves of the apostles Peter and Paul. 
Comp. Jerome, below, note 8. Afterward they were called, too, ’AzooroActov, Ipognreiov. 

6A practice strongly disapproved by St. Anthony. Cot. Athanasius in vita Antonii 
(Opp. t. ii. p. 502): Tay dé. parade soot male usivat adtov tap’ abroig, naked TeAecc- 

VOL. 127 


418 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 324-451. 


idea of communion with the martyrs was always increasingly 
associated with the vicinity of their mortal remains, the latter 
were drawn forth from their graves and placed in the churches,’ 
especially under the altars.° ‘Thus respect for the martyrs re- 
‘ceived a material object to center itself on, and became in con- 
sequence more extravagant and superstitious. ‘To the old idea 
of the efficacy of the martyrs’ intercession,’ was now added the 
belief, that it was possible to communicate the desires to them 
directly ; an opinion partly founded on the popular notion that 
departed souls still hovered about the bodies they had once in- 
habited ;*° partly on the high views entertained of the glorified 


Ojjvar, ob« nvéxeTo,—OLd TodTo dé waALora* of AiyirTiot Ta THY TeAevTdYTwY crovdaiwy 
oOUaTa, Kal udALoTa THY Gyiwr papTiperv oLAotor pév OdrTe Kai TEepLeAicaety dOoviote, 
uy Kpoarew O& bd ypv, GAM’ éxt oxiprodinr TiOévat, Kai dvAarrew éEvdov map’ éavToig 
vomivovtes év TobTH TYuay Tove dmEAPbrvTac. ‘O 62 ’AvTdviog TOAAGKLC TEpt TObTOV Kai 
értoxdérove Héiov mapayyéAAety Toic Aaoic’ duoiwe 02 Kai Aaixode évérpeTev, Kal yuvarsiv 
éxétdAntrev, Aéywv, pnTe vouimov, unte GAwe éotov sivar TodTo. Kai yap ta Tév 
Tarprapyav kai tov Ipodyrév, aduara wéxpe viv odfetat cic wvjpara, Kal ato d& TO 
Tov kvpiov cdua el¢ wvyueiov éréOn—. Kai raira Aéywr edeixvve, rapavopeiv Tov peta 
Odvarov pip KpbnToOvTa Ta COpata Tév TEAcTéVTOY, Kav Gyia TYYxaYH’ Tiyap peor 7 
dytGrepov Tob Kuptakod odpatoc ;—Adrog 62 TobTO yivdokwyr, Kal doBotpevoc, py Kat TO 
abrod rothowow obtw¢ Opa, imetsev Eavtov, cuvtagsduevoc Toicg év. TH &w Sper povayxoig. 
In like manner Marcian, Theodoreti Hist. relig. c. 3 (ed. Schulz. t. iii. p. 1147, s.), and 
Akepsimas, ibid. c. 15, p. 1221. 

7 Translations of the bodies of the saints into churches.. The first instances were those 
of St. Andrew, Luke, and Timothy (359), at the command of Constantine. Hieron. contra 
Vigilant. (Comp. the discovering and transferring of the bones of Theseus, by Cimon, 
Plutarch in Thes. ad fin.) 

8 Ambrosii Ep. 22 (al. 85, al. 54), ad Marcellinam sororem, § 13: Succedant victimae 
triumphales in locum, ubi Christi hostia est. Sed ille super altare,- qui pro omnibus 
passus est: isti sub altari, qui illius redemti sunt passione. Hunc ego locum praedesti- 
nayeram mihi: dignum est enim ut ibi requiescat sacerdos, ubi offeyre consuevit: sed 
cedo sacris victimis dexteram portionem, locus iste martyribus debebatur. Hieronymus 
adv. Vigilant.; Male facit ergo Romanus Episcopus, qui super mortuorum hominum 
Petri et Pauli, secundum nos ossa veneranda, secundum te vilem pulvisculum, offert 
Domino sacrificia, et tumulos eorum Christi arbitratur altaria? . Sozomenus, y. 9, et 19. . 
Cf. Goth. Voigti Thysiasteriologia, s. de altaribus vett. Christt. Hamb. 1709. 8. p. 250, ss. 
The passage Apoc. vi. 9, was not yet used, however, in justification of this practice, See 
Dallaeus adv. Latinorum de Cultus relig. objecto traditionem, lib. iv. c. 9. . 

® See Div. I. § 70, notes 13-21. 

10 This was the opinion of the heathen. Cf. Platonis Phaedon; Tibullus, i. 6, 15; 
Macrobius de Somn. Scip. i. 9, et 13; Porphyrius de Abstin. ii. 47. Lactantius, ii. 2: 
Vulgus existimat, mortuorum animas circa tumulos et corporum suorum reliquias oberrare. 
Cf. Wetstenii Nov. Test. i. p. 354. Hence Conc. Illiberitanum, c. 34: Cereos per diem 
placuit in coemeterio non incendi: imquietandi enim spiritus Sanctorum non sunt. Among 
the spiritual Origenists this idea did not naturally meet with acceptance. Cf. Macarii 
Politici (about 370) Sermo de Excessu justorum et peccatorum, in Cave Hist..Liter. vol. i. 
p. 259, and in J. Tollii Insignia itineris Italici (Traj. ad. Rhen, 1696. 4) p. 196. But comp. 
Ambrosii de Viduis, c. 9: Martyres obsecrandi, quorum videmur nobis quodam corporis 
Pignore patrocinium vindicare,—isti enim sunt Dei martyres, nostri praesules, specula- 


CHAP. V—PUBLIC WORSHIP. § 99. WORSHIP OF SAINTS. 419 


state of the martyrs who alone abide with the Lord. As Ori- 
gen first laid the foundation of this new kind of respect for mar- 
tyrs, so the Origenists were the first who addressed them in 
their sermons, as if they were present. and besought their inter- 
cession.” But though the orators were somewhat extravagant 


tores vitae, actuumque nostrorum.—Pseudo-Ambrosii (perhaps Maximi Taurinensis about 
430) Sermo vi. de Sanctis: Cuncti martyres devotissime percolendi sunt, sed specialter ii 
venerandi sunt a nobis, quorum reliquias possidemus. Ili enim nos orationibus adjuvant, 
isti etiam adjuvant passione: cum his autem nobis familiaritas est. Semper enim nobis- 
cum sunt, nobiscum morantur, hoc est, et in corpore nos viventes custodiunt, et de corpore 
recedéntes excipiunt : hic ne peccatorum labes absumat, ibi ne inferni horror invadat. 

41 So that people attributed to them a kind of omnipresence, as the heathen did to the 
demons’ (Hesiodi Opera et Dies, v. 121, ss.); cf. Hieronymus adv. Vigilantium: Tu Deo 
leges pones? Tu Apostolis vincula injicies, ut usque ad diem judicii teneantur custodia, 
pec sint cum Domino suo, de quibus scriptum est: Sequuntur agnum, quocunque vadit 
(Apoe. xiv. 4)? Si agnus ubique, ergo, et hi, qui cum agno sunt, ubique esse credendi 
sunt. Gregorii Naz. Orat. xviii. in landem Cypriani, p. 286: 20 d2 qudc éromretog 
dvobev ihews, kai Tov Huétepov dtesdyoug Adyor Kai Biov, kat Td tepdv TodTO ToipvLov 
Toaivot, 7 cvproiaiverc, x. T- 2. Pradentius Peristephanon bymn. i. v.16, ss. ix. v. 
97, and often. Sulpicius Severus Ep. ii. de Obitu b, Martini (ed. Lips. 1709, p. 371): 
Non deerit nobis ille, mihi crede, non deerit: intererit de se sermocinantibus, adstabit 
orantibus : quodque jam hodie praestare dignatus est, videndum se in gloria sua saepe 
praebebit, et adsidua, sicut ante paullulum fecit, benedictione nos proteget. Ep. iii. p. 
381: Martinus hic pauper et modicus coelum dives ingreditur: illinc nos ut spero custo- 
diens, me haee scribentem respicit te legentem. At first, Vigilantius (404) resisted this 
opinion (see below, § 106, note 6), and Jerome defended it against him (see above). On 
this Augustine also combated it, while he endeavored at the same time to defend inde- 
pendently of it, the practice of praying to the martyrs, which had been already established. 
Cf. Augustinus de Cura gerenda pro mortuis (A.D. 421) c. 13: Si rebus viventium inter- 
essent animae mortuorum, et ipsae nos quando eas videmus alloquerentur in somnis; ut 
de aliis taceam, me ipsum pia mater nulla nocte desereret, quae terra marique secuta 
est, ut mecum viveret.—Isaias propheta dicit (lxiii. 16): Tu es enim pater noster: quia 
Abraham nescivit nos, et Israel non cognovit nos. Si tanti Patriarchae quid erga 
populum ex his procreatum ageretur ignoraverant, qaomodo mortui vivorum rebus atque 
actibus cognoscendis adjuvandisque miscentur? With regard to the martyrs, he is not. 
indisposed indeed to allow a miraculous exception (cap. 16), but proceeds: Quamquam 
ista quaestio vires intelligentiae meae vincit, qaemadmodum opitulentur Martyres iis, 
quos per eos certum est adjuvari; utrum ipsi per se ipsos adsint uno tempore tam diversis 
locis,—sive ubi sunt eorum Memoriae, sive praeter suas Memorias ubicumque adesse 
sentiuntur : an ipsis in loco suis meritis congruo ab omni mortalium conversatione remotis, 
et tamen generaliter orantibus pro indigentiis supplicantium,—Deus—exaudiens Martyrum 
preces, per angelica ministeria usquequaque diffusa praebeat hominibus ista solatia, - 
quibus in hujus vitae miseria judicat esse praebenda: et suorum merita Martyrum, ubi 
vult, quando vult, quomodo. vult, maximeque per eoram Memorias, quoniam hoe: novit 
expedire nobis ad aedificandum fidem; Christi—mirabili atque: ineffabili potestate ac 
bonitate commendet. Res haec altior est, quam ut a me possit attingi, et abstrasior, 
quam ut a me valeat perscrutari: et ideo quid horum duorum sit, an vero fortassis 
utrumque sit,.ut aliquando fiant per ipsam praesentiam Martyrum, ‘aliquando per Angelos 
suscipientes personam Martyrum, definire non audeo: mallem a scientibus ista perquirere. 
Cf. de Civit. Dei, xxii. c.9. In his sermons he does not attack the usual opinion, ex. ge. 
sermo de Diversis 316 (al. 94): Ambo (Paulus et Stephanus) modo sermonen. nostram 
anditis : ambo pro nobis orate. 

32 Basilii M. Hom. 19, in xl. Martyres, §.6: Odrot elow of THY Kab? jac yOpas 


420 SECOND PERIOD—DIV. I—A-D. 924-451. 


in this respect, the poets, who soon after seized upon the same 
_ theme, found no eolors too strong to describe the power and 
glory of the martyrs.!* Even relics soon began to work mira- 
cles, and to become valuable articles of commerce on this ac- 
count, like the old heathen instruments of magic."* 

In proportion as men felt the need of such heavenly interces- 
sors, they sought to increase their number. Not only those 
persons who were inscribed in the Diptyeha* for services done 
to the church, but also the pious of the Old Testament, and 
particularly distinguished monks,’’ were taken into the cata- 


dvakaBérvres, olovet mipyo tivéc cvvexeic, doddderav éx Tie Tov evavTiny Katadpouii¢ 
Tapexouevos* oby évi tim EavTodve KaTakAsioavtec, AAG TwoAAoic HON Excgevwdévtes 

xowpiotc, kat TOAAaC matpidac KaTakoouHCAaYTEs. Kal Td rapadosor, od Kal’ Eva 6rapepto- 
Gévtec Toic Sexyouévorc éxidoirooww, GAX dvayixbévtec GAAHAOLC, Pvopévoc Yopedovow * 

© tod Gatparog !—obre é2Aeixover TO apiOuo, obte TAsovacpov éemidéyovTar’ édv ei 

éxatov abtove dtéAge, Tov olkeiov dpiOuoy odx éxBaivovow: éav elie Ev ovvaydyner 
TecoapGKovta Kal obtTw pévovel, KaTa THY Tow Tupdc dbo’ Kai yap éxeivo Kat mpdg 

tov é§anrovra wetaBaiver, nai GAov éoti mapa TH éyovtt* nal of TeccapakorTa, Kat 
mévrec eiciv duod, kat révtec eicl map’ éxdoTw'—O6 OALBopevoc éxi Tote TeccapadKovTa, 

Katadgetyet, 6 ebgpatvipevoc én’ abtove drotpéxer. 6 uev, iva Abotv ebpy Tov dvoxepor" 

6 62, ina GvAaxOy abtG ra ypnotétepa. etvraiba yuvn eboeBng ixép Téxvev ebyouévn 

katahauBaverar, Grodnuoivte dvdpi tiv éxavodov aitovpévn, dppwotodvTe THY owry- 

play’ peta paptipwr yevéobo re airhuata tpav'—Q yopic ayiocg! © cévTaypa iepév! 

& ovvasriopéc! & xowvol dbAakec tod yévoug Tév GvOpdrwv ! dyaboi kotvwvoi dpovtidur, 

dejoewes ovvewpyol, mpecBevtal duvardéraror, datépec Tij¢ oixoumévnc, GvOn Tov éxKAn- 

olav! tac oby 4 yh KaTéxpvier, 22’ oipavdc bredéEaTo, kK. T. A. Cf. Hom. xxiii. in 

Mamantem Martyrem. Gregorii Naz. Orat. xviii. in landem Cypriani. Gregorii Nysseni 

Orat. in Theodorum Mart. Daniei’s Gesch. vy. christ]. Beredsamkeit i. 281. In the west 

Ambrose goes farther in extolling the martyrs, Daniel i. 658. 

13 S@ especially the Spanish writer Aurelius Prudentins Clemens (about 405. Poemata 
ed. Nic. Heinsius. Amst. 1667.12. Chr. Cellarias. Halae. 1703. 8.) im his lib: wept ore- 
gavOv, containing fourteen hymns to the martyrs, comp. H. Middeldorpf Comm. de Pru- 
dentio et Theologia Prudentiana in Ilgen’s Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol. ii. ii. 187; and Pontius 
Paulinus, bishop of Nola (f 431. Letters and poems ed. J. B. le Brun. Paris. 1685, t. ii. 4, 
in Bibl. max. PP. t..vi. p. 163, ss.), especially in the ten natales S. Felicis. - 

14 See Augustine, above, § 96,n. 18. The law of Theodosius I. a.p, 386 (Cod. Theod. ix. 
Xvii. 7): Humatum corpus nemo ad alteram locum transferat : nemo martyrém distrahat, 
nemomercetur. Habeant vero in potestate, si quolibet in loco sanctorum est aliquis conditus 
pro ejus veneratione, quod martyrium vocandum sit, addant quod voluerint fabricarum. 

35 Joannes Cassianus Collat. vi. c. 1: In Palaestinae partibus juxta Tecuae viceum— 
solitudo vastissima est usque ad Arabiam ac mare mortuum.—In hac summiae vitae ac 
sanctitatis monachi diutissime commorantes, repente sunt a discurrentibus Saracenorum 
latrunculis interempti. Quoram corpora—tam a Pontificibus regionis illius quam ab uni- 
versa plebe Arabum tanta veneratione praerepta, et inter reliquias martyrum: condita, ut 
innumeri populi e duobus oppidis concurrentis gravissimum sibi certamen indixerint, et 
usque ad gladiorum conflictum, pro sancta rapina sit eoram progressa contentio, dum pia’ 
inter se deyotione decertant, quinam justius:eoram sepulturam ac reliquias possiderent, 


-* Diptycha. In Rees’s Cyclopaedia, Diptycha are explained to be “a double catalogue, 
in one whereof were written the names of the living, and in the other those of the dead- 
which were to be rehearsed during the office.” 


CHAP. V.—PUBLIC WORSHIP. § 99. WORSHIP OF SAINTS. 421 


logue ; and thus a still more comprehensive saint-worship arose 
out of the veneration paid to martyrs.'* Martyrs before un- 
known announced themselves also in visions; others revealed 
the places where their bodies were buried. Till the fifth cen- 
tury, prayers had been offered even for the dead saints ;’” but 
at that time the practice was discontinued as unsuitable. It 
is true that the more enlightened fathers of the church insisted 
on a practical imitation of the saints in regard to morality as 
the most important thing in the new saint-worship,’® nor were 


aliis sgilicet de vicinia commorationis ipsorum, aliis de originis propinquitate gloriantibus. 
Lomp. the dispute about the body of James, Theodoreti Hist. relig. c..21 (ed..Schulz. 3, 
p. 1239). 

*6 Thus Ambrose discovered the bodies of Protasius and Gervasius. Ambrose, Epist. 
22, ad sororem, August. de Civ. Dei, xxii. 8. The populace were inclined to regard every 
ancient unknown grave as the grave of a martyr, Sulpicius Severus de vita Martini,.c. 11. 

17 Epiphan. Haer. 75, § 7: Kai yap dixaiuy xootyeba tiv urviugnr, cai trip Guap- 

TwAdy'—inép dé dexaiwy, cai matépwr, xai Ilatprapyav, Upodyrév, kai ’AvooTéAwy;s 
kai EvayyeMaorav, «al Mapripor, kai ‘Ovodoyytar, ’Exickéruv te Kai "Avaxwpytav, 
kai mavtdg Tod TayyaToc, iva Tov Kipiov "Incody Xpiotév ddopicwuev and tHE TOV 
ivOpérev takews,—év évvaia bvtec, 6tt-oi« dori eicobuevoc 6 Kipiog Til TOV avOpd- 
Twv, kav te wupia Kai éxéxetva év diwacoctvy Exactoc dvOpéruv. Cf. Constitt. Apostol. 
viii. c. 12. Cyrill. Hieros. Catech. Mystag. v. § 8. Such intercessions, in their more ~ 
ancient form, are preserved in the liturgies of the Nestorians, ex. gr. liturgia Theodori 
Interpretis (in Renaudotii Liturgiarum orientalium collectio, tom. ii. p. 620): Domine et 
Deus noster, suscipe a nobis per gratiam tuam sacrificium -hoc gratiarum actionis, fructus 
scilicet rationabiles labiorum nostrorum, ut sit coram te memoria bona justorum antiquorum, 
Prophetarum sanctorum, Apostolorum beatorum, Martyrum et Confessorum, Episcoporum, 
Doctorum, Sacerdotum, Diaconorum, et omnium filioram Ecclesiae sanctae catholicae, 
eorum qui in fide vera transierunt ex hoc mundo, ut per gratiam tuam, Domine, veniam, 
illis concedas omnium peccatorum et delictorum, quae in hoc mundo, in corpore mortali, 
et anima mutationi cbnoxia peccaverunt aut offenderunt coram te, quia nemo est qui non 
peccet. So too Liturgia Nestorii ap. Renandot, l. c. p. 633. Cf. Bingham, lib. xv. c. 3, 
§ 16, 17 (voL vi. p. 330, ss.). \ 

48 Augustin. Serm.17: Injuria est enim pro weston orare, cujus nos debemus orationibus 
commendari (quoted by Innocent ILL, as sacrae scripturae auctoritas to justify, decretal 
Gregorii lib. iii. tit. 41, c. 6, the change of the ald formula, annue nobis, Domine, ut animae 
famuli, tui Leonis haec prosit oblatio, into the modern, annue, nobis, quaesumus, Domine, © 
aut intercessione b. Leonis haec nobis prosit oblatio). 

19 Augustin. de Vera religione, c. 55: Non sit nobis religio cultus hominum mortuorum : 

_quia, ‘si pie vixerunt, non sic habentur, ut tales quaerant honores; sed illum e nobis coli 
volunt, quo illuminante laetantur, meriti sui nos esse consortes. Honorandi sunt ergo 
propter imitationem, non adorandi propter religionem, contra Faustum, xx. 21: Populus 
christianus Memorias Martyrum religiosa solemnitate concelebrat, et ad excitandam imi- 
fationem, et ut meritis eorum consocietur, atque orationibus adjuvetur: ita tamen, ut~ 
nulli Martyrum, sed ipsi Deo Martyrum, quamvis in Memoriis Martyrum, constituamus 
altaria. Quis enim antistitum in locis sanctorum corporum adsistens altari, aliquando 
dixit: offerimus tibi, Petre, aut Paule, aut Cypriane? sed quod offertur, offertur Deo, qui 
Martyres coronavit, ut ex ipsorum locorum admonitione major adfectus exsurgat ad 
acuendam caritatem, et in illos, quos imitari possumus, et in illum, quo adjuvante possu- 
aus. Colimus ergo Martyres eo cultu dilectionis et societatis, quo in hac vita coluntar 
sancti bomines Dei, quorum cor ad talem pro evangelica veritate passionem paratum esse 


422 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV I1—A.D. 324-451. © 


exhortations to address prayer directly to Ged also wanting ;** 
but yet the people attributed the highest value to the interces- 
‘sion of the saints whose efficacy was so much prized.** Many 
heathen customs were incorporated with this saint-worship. 
Churches, under whose altars their bodies rested, were dedicated 
to their worship.** As gods and heroes. were formerly chosen 


sentimus. At vero illo cultu, qui graece Iatria dicitur, latine uno verbo dici non potest, 
cum sit quaedam proprie divinitati debita servitus, nec colimus, nec colendum docemus, 
nisi unum Deum. 

20 Ambrosiaster ad Rom. i. 22, against those who adored the elements, the stars, etc.: 
Solent tamen pudorem passi, neglecti Dei misera uti excusatione, dicentes per istos posse 
iri ad Deum, sicut per comites pervenitur ad regem. Age, numquid tam demens est 
aliquis, aut salutis suae immemor, ut honorificentiam regis vindicet comiti, cam de hac re 
si qui etiam tractare fuerint inventi, jure ut rei damnentur majestatis? Et isti se non 
putant reos, qui honorem nominis Dei deferunt creaturae, et relicto Domino conservos 
adorant; quasi sit aliquid plus, quod reservetur Deo. Nam et ideo ad regem per tribunos 
aut comites itur, quia homo utique est rex, et nescit quibus dcbeat republicam credere: 
Ad-Deum autem, quem utique nihil latet (omnium enim merita novit), promerendum 
suffragatore non opus est, sed mente devota. Ubicumque enim talis loquutus fueret ei, 
respondebit illii So Chrysostomus in Matth. Hom. 52 (al. 53), § 3, annexes to the history 
of the. woman of Canaan (Matth. xv. 21), the admonition: 2d dé pol oxéret, RO¢ TOY 
aroctéAwy qrrnfévtwy Kai ovK GyvadvTev, aitn ivvee. tocobTrov tort mpocedpeia 

ebyfc* Kai yap bxép Tov hyetépwr rap’ Rudy BobAeTat pahAov Tov brevPivur as.oie- 
Sa: } rap’ étépwy bxép judy. Cf. de Poenitentia orat. iv. 4: (6 Cedc) xwpic pecitov 
wapakaAcirat. Comp. Cramer's dritte Forts. and Bossuet, S. 350, ss. 

21 Ambrosius de Viduis, c.9: Aegri, nisi ad eos alioruny precibus medicus fuerit invi- 
tatus, pro se rogare non possunt. Infirma est caro, mens aegra est et peccatorum vinculis 
impedita, ad medici illiaus sedem debile non potest explicare vestigium. Obsecrandi sunt 
Angeli pro nobis, gui nobis ad praesidium dati sunt, martyres obsecrandi, quorum videmur 
nobis quoddam corporis pignore patrocinium vindicare. Possunt pro peccatis rogare nostris, 
qui proprio sanguine etiam si qua habuerunt peccata laverunt. Isti enim sunt Dei mar- 
tyres, nostri praesules speculatores vitae actuumque nostrorum. Non erubescamus eos: 
intercessores nostrae infirmitatis adhibere, ete. Even Chrysostom recommends (de Sanctis 
martyr. Serm. 68, Opp. v. 872), the worship of martyrs and their relics as a means of pro- 
curing the forgiveness of sins, and virtues. é 

22 The churches.were still named in different ways, many after their founders (so in. 
Carthage the basilicae Fausti, Florentii, Leontii, in Alexandria the eccl. Arcadii (the old 
Serapeum), in Rome the basilicae Constantini and Justiniani),; others from other circum. 
stances, thus in Carthage basilica restituta, in Alexandria the Caesareum, in Rome the 
eccl. triumphalis (the old Church of Peter), eccl. Laterana (because on the site of the 
palace of Lateranus, a contemporary of Nero), see Bingham, vol. iii. p. 329. Thus although. 
originally the calling of churches after martyrs did not denote that they were dedicated to 
them, yet the meaning attached to the names came gradually to be so understood, and® 
even the distinctions madé by Augustine admit of this acceptation, comp. de Civitate Dei, 
xxii. 10: An dicent, etiam se habere deos ex hominibus mortuis, sicat Herculem, sicut 
Romulum, sicut alios multos, quos in deorum numerum receptos opinantur? Sed nobis 
Martyres, non sunt dii—Nos Martyribus nostris non temple sicut diis, sed memorias sicut 

_ hominibus mortuis, quorum apud Deum vivunt spiritus, fabricamus; neque ibi erigimus 
altaria, in quibus’ sacrificemus Martyribus, sed uni Deo et Martyrum et nostro sacrificia 
immolamus: ad quod sacrificium, sicut homines Dei, qui mundum in ejus confessione 
vicerant; suo loco et ordine nominantur, non tamen a sacerdote qui sacrificat invocaztar. 
Deo quippe, non ipsis, sacrificat, qaamyis in memoria sacrificet eoram. Cf. -vii..27. 


CHAP. V.—PUBLIG WORSHIP. § 99. WORSHIP OF SAINTS. 423 


for patrons, so patron-saints were now selected.” And since 
the heathen had been so bitterly accused at an earlier period by 
the Christians of worshiping dead men,** they could not now be 
blamed in their turn for ridiculing the new saint-worship.” 

Tn the fourth century no peculiar reverence above other saints 
was as yet shown to the Virgin Mary. In consequence of mo- 
nastic ideas (see § 95, note 23), the Christians merely attrib- 
uted a high value to her perpetual virginity ; and for this rea- 
son began to declare the opinion that she had afterward borne 
children to Joseph ** to be heretical ; as, for instance, Epiphanius 


a 

23 Theodoreti Graec. affect. curat. disp. 8 (ed. Schultze, t. iv. p. 902): Al pév yevvaiat 
TOV viKnodpwr Woyal TepiToAodat TOV obpavdv,—Ta J? CouaTa, ody sic évdg KaTaKpbrTEL 
tagoc éxdatouv’ dAAd mOAELc Kai KGuat Tadra draverwauevat, CwTHpac Kal Wuydv Kai 
ouudtov, kai iarpov¢ dvoudlovat, Kai O¢ ToALodyYouG TiuGot Kal ddAaKaC* Kai YowpuEvOE 
mpeoBevtaic mpoc Tov Tdv d6Awv deorétnv, bia TotTav Tic Oeiag KouifovTar dwpede. 
Page 921: Ol dé ye Tév KadAwwikav paptipwv onkol, Aaurpol Kai wepiBAextor, Kai 
ueyéVer Ovarpereic, kai wavTodarG¢ meTorKiApévor, Kai KéAAOVE adlévTEec waowapvydc- 
elc dé totToug oby drat 7 dic ye Tod érove 7 mEevTaKic GoLTOuEv* GAAA TWOAAGKIC Mev TaPY- 
nytpere éxiteAodpev, woAAaKiC 62 Kal juépuc éxdotn¢ TO TobTwv Aeordry Tove buvovg 
mpoogépouev’ Kal ol pév bycaivovtec aitovar tig dyeiag THY GvAaKHY’ ol dé TiVt véow 
mahaiovrec, Thy TOV TAaOnudToV &rahAayHv: airodat dé Kai dyovor traidac, Kat Gré&pidac 
mapaxahovot yevéotar pyrépec:-—Kai of péev sic twa drodnuiav oreAAuevol, ALTapodor 
tovrouc Evvodoirépoue yevécbat, cai ti¢ 400d Hyeudvac’ of b2 THe émavédov TeTvYNKOTEC, 
THY THC KapiToc buodoyiay mpoogépovow* oby wc Yeoig abroic xpooidvTec, GAN’ we Oeiovg 
avOpdrove avTiBorodvTec, Kal yevéobat mpecBevta¢g baép-cddv wapaxadobvrec. bri d= 
Tvyxavovetv Ovrep aitodaw ol miatGc émayyéAAovrec, dvagavddv paprupet TA TOOTOY 
dvabjpara, THY latpetav OndodyTa’ of ev yap d¢0aAuGv, oi d2 modGv, GAOL dé YeLpev 
mpocdépovow éxtuTapuata’ Kai of piv &« ypvood, ol d& 2 tAn¢ apyipou reroinuéva’ 
Page 923: Tove yap oixeiove vexpodco 6 Aeorérng avteronge toi¢ tuerépoic Oeoic: Kai 
Tove pev dpodvdouc arédnve, Tobrore O2 Ta éxeivwn dwéveme yépa* avTi yap 67 Tdv Tlav- 
diwv, cai Ataciov, Kat: Atovvoinv, kai Tov GA2Aov budv ~optdv, Uérpov cai Tataov kai 
Oona kat Sepyiov—Kai Tév-dAAwv papripwrv, éxireAodvras Snuoborviar, K T.A. ‘Comp. 
Neander’s Chrysostomus, Bd. 2, 8. 128, f. 
~ 2 Arnobius adv. Gentiles, vi. 6: Multa ex his templa—comprobatur, contegere cineres 
atque ossa, et functorum esse corporum sepulturas, etc. 

25 Julianus ap. Cyrill. adv. Jul. x. p. 335: "Oca 62 tueic ébf¢ mpocevphxate, ToAAodC 
érecodyovtes TO TaAat vEeKp@ Tov TpoaddTove vEeKporc, Tic Gv Tpd¢ akiav BdEAbEnrat ; 
Ildvra éxAnpdcare Tédwv Kai wpvnuatov.—El éxabapoiac Inootc éGn elvar TARpELE ToOds 
tadouc (Matth. xxiii. 27), ric tuéic én’ abrov érikadeiobe Tov Oedv; Cf. vi. p. 201. Miso- 
pogon, p. 344. Eunapius in vita Aedesii, ed. Geney. 1616, p. 65. Ammian. Marcell. xii. 
11. Comp. Maximus, § 79, note 1. 

26 Basilius M. Hom. in sanctam Christi generationem, c. 5 (Opp. t. ii. p. 598), remarks, 
however, on Matth. i. 25: Ov« éyivwoxe abriy, wc ob Erexe tov vidv atric, Tov Tparé- 
toxov the following roiro dé 76n brévorav wapéyet, 6tL weTa TO KaPapdc brnpEeTHoacbat 
TH yevvyoer tod Kkupiov TH éxiteAcobeion Sid Tod TvEeduaTtog Tod dyiov, Ta vevomtouéva 
Tov yduov Epya wh arapvnoapuévyc tic Mapiac’ jucic O8, el Kai undév TO tHe eboeBeiac 
rapahvuaiverat Abyw (uéxpt yap Tie Kara THY OlKovouiay brnpeciac GvayKaia 7 rapbevia, 
To 0 ébedng drokumpaypovntov TO Ady Tod pevornpior), 6uwe 01d TO ph KaTadéyeoOar 
TOV grhoxpiarav THY Gkonv, Ort more érxavoaro eivat wapbévoc 7 OsoréKoc, éxeivac Wpee- 

peba Tac wapTupiag abrdpkerc. . 


424 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 324-451. ; 


(Haer. 78) against the *Avtidccouapravira, in Arabia (367) ; 
Jerome against Helvidius, in Rome (383) ;*" and the Macedo- 
nian bishops against Bonosus, bishop of Sardica (392) ;** while 
it was also shown in what way she did not cease to be a virgin, 
notwithstanding the birth of Christ.*® Besides, the teachers of 
the Church in the fourth century did not refrain from speaking 
of the faults of Mary ;*° and Epiphanius includes certain enthu- 
siastic women in his catalogue of heretics for their extravagant 
adoration of the Virgin (KoAAvpid:avoi).*! _ The Nestorian con- 
troversy first led men to set her at the head of the host of saints, 
as the mother of God, @eoréKoc. 


Though it was the general belief that angels guarded inen, 
and presented their prayers to God, it was still thought unal- 


27 Hieron. adv. Helvidium, lib. in Opp. ed. Martianay, t. iv. P. ii. p. 129, ed. Vallarsi, 
t. ii. Concerning the Antidicomarianites and Helvidius see Walch’s Ketzerhist. iii. 577. 

28 Siricii Ep. 9 (comp. above, § 94, note 14). Walch, iii. 598. 

2° Tertullianus de Carne Christi, c. 23: Agnoscimus ergo signum contradicibile (accord- 
ing to Luc. ii. 34) conceptum et partum virginis Mariae; de quo Academici isti: peperit, 
et non peperit; virgo, et non virgo.—Peperit, enim, quae ex sua carne: et non peperit, 
quae non ex virili semine. Et virgo, quantum a viro; non virgo, quantum a partu. Cle- 
mens Alex. Strom. vii. p. 889: Toic woAAoic xai uéype viv doxet 7 Mapa Aexe elvar drt 
THY Tov TaLdiov yévycty, obx Ovca AYO" Kai yap wEeTa TO TeKEiv aiTHY paLwHeicay gaci 
tivec Tapévov etpeffvat. Epiphanius, Haer. lxxviii. § 19, does not hesitate to say, in 
reference to Luke ii. 23, Exod. xiii. 2: Ovré¢ éotiv dAnGGc dvotywv uATpav untpéc. On 
the contrary, Ambrosius, Ep. 42 (al. 81, al. 7), ad Siricium P.: Haec est virgo, quae in 
utero concepit: virgo, quae peperit filium. Sic enim scriptam est: Ecce virgo in utero 
accipiet, et pariet filium (Es. vii. 14), non enim concepturam tantummodo virginem, sed 
et parituram virginem dixit. Quae autem est illa porta sanctuarii, porta illa exterior ad 
Orientem, quae manet clausa; et nemo, inquit, pertransibit per eam, nisi solus Deus Israel 
(Ezech. xliv. 2)? Nonne haec porta Maria est, per quam in hunc mundum redemtor in- 

‘travit?.. . de qua scriptam est, quia Dominus pertransibit per eam, et erit clausa post 
partum ; quia virgo concepit et genuit. Hieronymus adv. Pelagianos, lib. ii. (Opp. ed. 
Martian. t. iv. P. ii. p. 512): Solus enim Christus clausas portas valvae virginalis aperuit 
quae tamen clausae jugiter permanserunt. Haec est porta orientalis clausa, per quam 
solus Pontifex ingreditur et egreditur, et nihilominus semper clausa est. 

30 After the example of Irenaeus, iii. 18. Tertull. de Carne Christi, 7. Origines in 
Luc. Hom. 17 :—Basilius Ep. 260 (al. 317) ad Optimum. Chrysostomus Hom. 45 in Matth. 
et Hom. 21 inJoh. On the other hand, Augustin. de Nat. et Grat. ec. 36: Excepta sancta 
virgine Maria, de qua propter honorem Domini nullam prorsus, cum de peccatis agitur, 
haberi volo quaestionem,—si omnes illos sanctos—congregare possemus, et interrogare, 
utrum essent sine peccato, quid fuisse responsuros putamus ? 

31 Concerning them Epiphan. Haer. 78, § 23. Haer. 79. Anacephal. c. 79. Comp. 
Walch’s Ketzerhistorie, iii. 625. IF. Minter de Collyridianis in the Miscellanea Hafnien- 
sia, t. i. fasc. 2. Hafn. 1818. p. 153, ss. Their heresy was: ’Avti Ocod tatryv Tapetodyew 
onovddlovtec,—ac ele dvoua tHe detmapbévov KodAvpida Twa ExiteEdeiv, Kai ovvdyecbat 
éxi td aitd,—xai eic Gvoua abti¢ lepovpyetv dia yuvatxGv. This usage is perhaps ex- 
plained by Jerem. xliv. 19, where the women offer cakes to the Queen of Heaven; perhaps 
by Conc. Quinisexti, can. 79: “The birth of the Virgin was d”éyevroc: hence no cake 
(ceuidarsc) shall be presented after the birthday of Christ zpogdcet tiie Aoyerov rig 
axpavrov rapGevopyAropos.” 


a 


CHAP. V.—PUBLIC WORSHIP. § 99. WORSHIP OF SAINTS. 495 


lowable to address them, because of the passages, Coloss. ii. 18, 
Revelation of John xix. 10; xxii. 8, 9." Ambrose is the first 
who recommends seeking the intercession of the guardian an- 
gel ;* but as yet the Christians had not ae a more general 
worship of angels.** 

The cross, always a highly honored symbol among Chris- 
tians,* had been more superstitiously venerated ever since the 
time when Constantine believed that he owed to it his victory 
over Maxentius.** But after the tradition had spread, from the 
end of the fourth century, that Helena (326) had discovered the 
true cross of Christ,°” relics and even imitations of it began to 


32 Concil. Laodic. can. 35: “Or ob det Xpiotiavode éyxatadeinewy tHv éxxAnotav Tod 
Geod Kai dmtévar kal dyyéhove évoudlerv, x.t.4. Dionys. Exig. translates: Atque 
angelos (var. lect. angulos) nominare. Cf. Theodoret. ad Coloss. ii. 18: Oi TS vou@ ovv7- 
yopobvrec, Kat Tobe ayyéhoue céBew abtoi¢g elanyodvto, dit TobTwv Aéyovtec deddc0at 
Tov vouov. suecve d& tadto TO wéOoc bv TH Dpvyia Kai Tsowdig uéypt ToAAd* od OF 
xdpiv Kai cvvedGoica cbvodoc év Aaodixeia tig Ppvyiag véuw KeKOAvKe Td Toi¢ ayyéAoue 
mpocedyecGat: Kai wéypt O& Tod viv ebxTHpia Tov dyiov MiyaynA map’ Exeivotg Kal Tot¢ 
budpote éxeivwn éotiv idciv. todto Toivuy cuveBovAevov éxeivor yivecbat, Tarecvogpoobyy 
. Onbev Kexpnusévot, Kai AéyovTec, Oe dbpatoc 6 THY bAwY Oedg avéguKtég TE Kal GkaTaAnz- 
TO¢, Kal Tpoonker did TOv dyyédwov, THY Osiav ebyévecav TpayzateteoOa. Augustini 
Confess. x. 42: Quem invenirem, qui me reconciliaret tibi?’ Abeundem mihi fuit ad 
angelos? Multi conantes ad te redire, neque per se ipsos valentes, sicut audio, tentave- 
runt haec, et inciderunt in desiderium curiosarum visionum, et digni habiti sunt illusioni- 
bus. Cf. Keilii Opusc. acad. f. ii. p. 548, ss. 

3? Ambros. de Viduis, c.9: Obsecrandi sunt angeli, qui nobis ad praesidium dati sunt. 
See note 21. 

34 Augustini Collatio cum Maximino, c. 14 (Opp. viii. 467): Nonne si templum alicui 
sancto Angelo excellentissimo de'lignis et lapidibus faceremus, anathematizaremur a veri- 
tate Christi et ab Ecclesia Dei, quoniam creaturae exhiberemus eam servitutem, quae 
uni tantum debetur Deo? In the time of Sozomen there was, it is true, a church in Con- 
stantinople, named Miya#/uov, but solely for this reason (Sozom. ii. 3): Ka@éru remiorev- 
rat évOdde Exidaivecbar MiyanA Tov Oeiov ’Apydyyedov. 

35 But Minucius Felix, c. 29: Cruces nec colimus, nec optamus. 

36 Buseb. de vit. Constant. 1. 40; ii. 6-9, 16; iv. 21. Sozom. i. 8, in fine. 

37 This story is false. Eusebius de vita Const. iii. 25, relates at great length how the 
holy sepulcher was cleared out at the command of Constantine, not of Helena, and the 
church of: the resurrection built over it, but says nothing of the discovery of the cross. 
Then not till c. 41, ss. does he speak of the journey of Helena to Palestine, and how she 
built churches at the spot where Christ was born in Bethlehem, and on the locality of the 
ascension on the Mount of Olives. The Gaul also, who was in Jerusalem A.D. 333, and 
mentions all the holy objects in the city in his Itinerarium (Vetera Rom. Itineraria, ed. P. 
Wesseling, p. 593), knew nothing of the holy cross and its finding. The oldest testimony 
alleged for it, but which notwithstanding does not speak of Helena, in Cyrilli Hieros. 
Epist. ad Constantium, professedly written about A.D. 351, is a later interpolation. It can 
not have been known before the fifth century, for Jerome, in Catal. s. v. Cyrillus, does not 
mention it, and Ambrose Orat. de obitu Theodosii, Jo. Chrysostomus Hom. 85 (al. 84), Pauli- 
nus Nolanus Hpist. 31 (al. 11), Rufinus Hist. eccl. x. 7,8, Socrates, i. 17, Sulpic. Sever. Hist. 
sacr. ii. 34, are ignorant of it; since otherwise they would not have related the cireum- 
stances of the finding, and especially the recognition of the true cross so differently. The 


426 . SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A-D. 324-453. - 


work miracles,** became objects of the highest adoration, and 
were finally put on altars.*® 

Helena set the first example of a pilgrimage to Palestine, 
which was soon extensively imitated!” By this means ideas 
of the holiness of that country had increased so much, even to 
the grossest superstition,‘’ that many. teachers of the Churoh 
openly discouraged these pilgrimages.** 

Aversion to pictures ceased among Christians in the fourth 
century. They allowed not merely likenesses of emperors,*‘* 


credulous Sozomen (ii. 1) first speaks of this letter of Cyril. The conclusion of it, in which 
the emperor is designated as dofdfwv tiv duootcov tpidda is decidedly adverse to its au- 
thenticity. For Cyril, in the time of Constantius, was not an adherent of the Nicene faith, 
and that this emperor was not so might have been unknown a considerable time after, in 
different places. Comp. Dallaeus ady. Latinorum de cultus religiosi objecto traditionem. 
Genevae. 1664. 4. p. 704. Witsii Miscellan. sacra, ii. 364. 

*8 Paulinus.Nolanus Ep. 31 (al. 11): The bishop of Jerusalem alone could bestow splin- 
ters of the cross, ad magnum fidei et benedictionis gratiam. Quae quidem crux in materia 
insensata vim vivam ténens, ita ex illo tempore innumeris paene quotidie hominum votis 
lignum suum commodat, ut detrimenta non sentiat, et quasi intacta permaneat. 

39 First mentioned by Sozomen, ii..3, and Nilus. See note 48. Cf. Bingham, vol. 
iii. p. 236. 

40 Partly in order to be baptized in Jordan (Euseb. de locis Ebr. s. v. ByfaGapé), 
which was also the purpose of Constantine (Euseb. de vit. Const. iv. 62); but also 
attracted by the marvelous and the love of relics. Paulinus Nol. Ep. 11: The holy cross 
was shown only at Easter, nisi interdum religiosissimi postulent, qui hac tantum causa 
illo peregrinati advenerint, ut sibi ejus revelatio quasi in pretium longinquae peregrina- 
tionis deferatur. Epist. 36: Religiosa cupiditas est loca videre, in quibus Christus 
ingressus et passus est, et resurrexit, et unde conscendit: et aut de ipsis locis exiguum 
pulverem, aut de ipso Crucis ligno aliquid saltem festucae simile sumere et habere, 
benedictio est. As tua wood of the cross suffered no, diminution (note 38), so also the 
footsteps of the Lord at his ascension were not worn away. Sulpic. Sever. Hist. sacr. ii. 
33 : Cum quotidie confluentium fides certatim Domino calcate airipiat, damnum tamen arena 
non sentit: et eadem adhuc sui speciem, velut impressis signata vestigiis terra custodit. 

41 Ex, gr. Augustin. de Civ. Dei, xxii. 8. Respecting the wonderful power of the 
terra sancta de Hierosolymis allata. 

42 Hieron. Ep. 13, ad Paulinum: Non Hierosolymis fuisse, sed Hierosolymis bene 
vixisse laudandum est.—Et de Hierosolymis et de Britannia aequaliter patet aula 
coelestis.—Beatus Hilarion cum Palaestinus esset et in Palaestina viveret: uno tantum 
die vidit Hierosolymam, ut nec contemnere loca sancta propter viciniam, nec rursus, 
dominum loco claudere videretar. _ (On the other hand, E pist. 47, ad Desiderium: adorasse, 
ubi steterunt pedes Domini, pars fidei est, et quasi recentia nativitatis et crucis ac pas- 
sionis vidisse vestigia.) Especially zealous is Gregorii Nysseni Epist..repi tév dziévTav 
ei¢ ‘lepocdAvua against these pilgrimages (reprinted also as an appendix to J. H. Hei- 
degger de Peregrinationibus religiosis. Turici. 1670. 8). We see from his letters that 
even then Jerusalem was remarkable for corruption of morals, as places of pilgrimage 
usually are: El qv mAéov 4 xdpic év roig Kata ‘lepooéAoua Torote otk dv éxexwpiate 
toic éxel (Gow } duaptia. Nov uévrot odx otiv dxabapoiag eldoc, 6 pu ToAudrat Tap? 
abroic, Kai wovnpiat, kal wotyeiat, Kal KAorai, Kai eidwAoAarpeiat, Kai dapuaxeial, Kar 
~06vol, Kai Govot. 

43 Likenesses of Constantine and his children were affixed to the Labarum, Euseb 
de vita Const. i. 31, iv. 69, comp. above, note 4. 


CHAP. V.—PUBLIC WORSHIP, §99. IMAGE-WORSHIP. 427 


but also of other distinguished men.“ On the other hand, it 
was still reckoned a heathen practice to represent objects of wor- 
ship by pictures,“* At first, allegorical representations of sacred 
doctrines, and historical pictures taken from the Scriptures or 
from the history of martyrs, were allowed in the churches. Of 
these the earliest instances in the east are mentioned by Greg- 
ory of Nyssa ;** in the west, by Paulinus, bishop of Nola (409- 


i 


“4 Thus the Christians of Antioch had likenesses of their bishop Meletius (t 381) even 
during his lifetime, on the seals, rings, vessels, and walls. See Chrysostomi Orat- 
encomiastica in S. Meletium, Opp. ii. 519. 

45 See Div. I. §.70, note 5. Euseb. Caesariensis Ep. ad Constantium. (Conc. Nicaeni, 
ii. actio 6. Published more complete by J. Boivin in the totes to Nicephori Gregorae 
Byzant. Histor. ed. Bonn. t. ii. p.1301): "Eze? dé xai mepi tivog eixévog dc 6) To Xpiotod 
yéypagas, eixéva Bovdouévyn cor tabrny tb’ judy reudbivar* tiva Aéyetg Kal rotav 
TAUTHY, RV One TOD Xptorod eixéva ;—w6Tepov tv dAnby Kat GwetaGAAaktov, Kal ddcee 
toug abrod yapaktipac dépovoay~ 7) Tadryv jy OV Huds avetAnde, Tie Tod dobAov popdre 
mepiOéuevoc TO cxRUa ;—dAAG TOD TPO THE UETAaBOAT¢ capKiov abrod dy Tod Ovgrod THY 
eikdve one map! que alretv~ dpa yap rovré ce wovov diédabev.t6 dvéyvucua, év O46 Geog 
vouoderet bn Totetv duotwpa Mate TOY, doa Ev TO odpave, Late Tov, boa tv 7H yq KaTO ; 
} gor bre bv ékxAnoia rd ToLodrov a aith, } kat wap’ GALov rodto HKoveae ; odyt dé 
kal? GAne Tie oikoupévne &fdpiota: Kai ropbw Tov éExkAnotdy redvyddevTac Ta ToLadTAa, 
povoie Te Huiv pH éfeivar TO ToLodTOv Toleiv Tapa waor BeBdynrat;—odx oida yap, brwC¢ 
_ ybvatoy tt peta xeipac mote dbo tide Gépoved KaTayeypuyipévove, de av dtAocddove, 
aréhpipe Adyov, Oc dv eciev TabAov nai tod YwtHpoc: odk Eyw Aéyerv, odte brbOev 
AaBoica, cite bHev toiTo pafoica- iva pyd? abt, pyd? Erepor cKavdadifowTo, dberd- 
pevoc tabrnv rap’ EuavTov KaTelxor, oby Hyovpevog KaAGe Exewv cig ErEpove SAwe Exdépey 
Taira, iva pH dSoxGuev. dixnv eidwaodatpoivTwv Tov Osdv judy év eixdve mepidépery. 
Epiphanius Ep. ad Johannem Hierosol. ex vers. Hieronymi (Epiph. Opp. ii. 317) relates, 
that when he had come into the church in Anablatha, a village of Palestine, inveni ibi 
velum pendens in foribus ejusdem Ecclesiae tinctum atque depictum, et habens imaginem, 
quasi Christi, vel sancti cujusdam. Non enim satis memini, cujus imago fuerit. Cum 
ergo. hoc vidissem, in Ecclesia Christi contra auctoritatem Scripturarum hominis pendere 
imaginem, ‘scidi illud, et magis dedi consilium custodibus ejusdem loci, ut pauperem 
mortuum eo obyolverent et efferrent. He promises them a new velum which he herewith 
sends and asks John, deinceps praecipere, in Ecclesia Christi ejusmodi vela, quae contra 
religionem nostram yeniunt, non appendi. <Asterius, bishop of Amasea (about 400.. See 
Homilies in the auctarium PP. ed. Combefisii) Hom. in Divitem et Lazaram : M7 ypdde 
tov Xpiorév. dpKet yap abTO 7 pia tHe évgwpatdcews TaTELvogdpootyy, jv adblatpéToc 
Ov qyace xatedéfaTo~ éxi 62 rig WuyREe cov BacTadlwv vonT&e Tov doduartov Zé6yov 
mepigepe. Cf Suiceri Thes. eccl. i. 1014. Jo. Dallaei de Imaginibus libb. iv. Lugd. Bat. 
1642. 8. p. 163, ss. Frid. Spanhemii Hist. imaginum. Lugd. Bat. 1686. 8. (Opp. iii. 50%, 
‘Neander’s Chrysostomus, ii. 143. 

#8 Greg. Nyss. Orat. de laudibus Theodori Mart. c. 2 (Opp. ii. 1011), in describing the 
ehurch built in honor of Theodore: ’Exéypwce d2 kai Gwypigog ra dvOn tie Téyvne év 
eikéve dvaypawduevoc, Tag dpioreiag tod pidpTupos, Tag évotdcetc, Tag Ghyndévac, Tae 
Onptadere TOv Tupavrvwy popddc, Tac éexnpeiac, THY dAoyorpédov ékeivyY, Kdutvov THY 
Bakapiwrarny Tedeiwow tod GbAnTod, To} dywvolérov Xptorod Tig dvOparivyg uopdie 
TO éxrir@pa: navta hyuiv, d¢ év BiBAiw tive yAwTrodépy did YpwuaTwv Texvoupynad- 
pevoc cagcc dinyépevce Tove GyGvagc Tot paprupoc. In the Orat. de deitate Filii-et Spir. 
S. (1. cp. 908), he describes a picture of the sacrifice of Isaac. (Augustin. contra Faustam, 
xxii. 73+ Factum ita nobile,—ut tot linguis cantatum, tot locis pictum, et aures et aculos 


428 SECOND PERIGD—DIV. IL—A.D. 324-451. 


431, a.v.).‘7. Such pictures were not intended to be worshiped, 
but were merely for instruction and stimulus.‘* The like- 
nesses of individuals only were capable of leading the minds of 
the illiterate astray, so as to worship them. The first pictures 
of this kind which we find in a Gallic Church at the end of the 
fifth century do not, it is true, imply that they were worship- 
ed ;‘* but soon after, superstition connected itself with the like- 
nesses of miracle-working persons, which were placed in houses.*° 
Under Leo the Great, we find the first picture of Christ in a 
Romish Church.” 


dissimulantis feriret.} Comp. Cramer's Forts. vy. Bossuet’s Weltgesch. Th. 4, 8. 442, ss. 
Minter’s Sinnbilder u. Saeethr cestode der alten Christen. Heft 1,8. 9, ss. 
47 Paulin. Natal. ix. Felicis: 
Propterea visum nobis opus utile, totis 
Felicibus domibus pictura illudere sancta: 
Si forte attonitas haec per spectacula mentes 
Agrestum caperet fucata coloribus umbra, etc. 
Cf. Natalis vii. et x. Epist. 30 (et 12) Prudentius epi cregavev, hymn ix. v. 10, hyma 
xi.v. 127. Minter, i. 12. 

48 Nilus (see § 85, note 1) advised the Eparch Olympiodorus who intended to build 
a Martyrion and to adorn it with a number of pictures (lib. iv. Ep. 61): "Ev 70 iepateia 
uév Kata dvaroddc tod Getotdrou Tenévouc Eva Kai povov TurGeat oravpbv~ dt’ évdg yap 
caTnpiadove cTraypod 76 TO avOpdrov diacélerat yévoc, kal Toig axnAmtiopévore éAzi¢ 
xavrayod Knptocerar~ ictopiGy d& rakatic Kai véac SiabAKnne xAnpocar Evuev Kai Eviev 
xelpt KahAiorov Cwypddov tov vaov tov dyov, bra dv oi pH eiddteg yodupata, und? 
Suvapevot Tic Geiac dvayiwwéoKew ypagac TH Gewpia tie Cwypadgiac uvquny te AauBdvecw 
Tie TGV yunoing TO GAnOLv@ Oe dedovievkitwv avdpayabiac, Kai mpic GutiAav dueyet- 
pavrat Tov ebx2e0v Kai doWipnwr dpiorevuatar, Ou’ Ov tie yao TOV obpavov annARGEayTo. 

#9 Severus caused pictures of Martin of Tours and Paulinus of Nola to be brought inte 
the baptistery of the church in Bourges, while the former was probably alive, the latter, 
certainly so. Pauli Nol. Bp. 32. Cf. Bingham, vol. iii. p. 305. 

50 Thus Augustine mentions pictures.of Peter and Paul (de Consensu evangel. i. 10), 
but says of them: Sic omnino errare meruerunt, qui Christam et Apostolos ejus non in 
sanctis codicibus, sed in pictis parietibus quaesierunt: Comp. de Moribus eccl. cath. i 
34: Novi, multos esse sepuichrorum et picturarum adoratores. Nunc vos illud admoneo, 
at aliquando Ecclesiae catholicae maledicere desinatis, vitaperando mores hominum, quos 
et ipsa condemnat, et quos quotidie tanquam malos filios eorrigere studet.' According te 
Theodoreti Hist. relig. c. 26 (ed. Schultze, iii. 1272), Simeon Stylites was held in such 
honor at Rome even during his lifetime, o¢ tv Graot toig tev épyacrypiov rporviaiore 
eixdpag aito Bpayeiag dvacrioa, ovAaKHy tiva coioww abroic Kai dogéAeiay évreifev 
wopilovrag. 

51 According to Severianus (about 400) an opponent of Chrysostom, subsequently bishop 
of Gabala (Tract. in s. crecem in S. Jo. Chrysost. de Educandis liberis, lib. etc. ed. Franc. 
Combefis. Paris. 1656. 8. p. 129), the cross is 7 tot d0avdrov BactAéwe cixév. In the 
churches of Paulinus of Nola, Christ appears only in the symbolic form of the lamb at the 
foot. of the cross. - In the mosaic picture belonging to the S. Maria Maggiore, the oldest 
extant, which was made under Sixtus III, 432-440, a throne with a book roll, and behind 
it a cross, forms the central point. In the background, Christ appears only as a child, in 
historical representations from the accounts of his childhood. In the Basilica of St. Paul, 

which was built under Leo'I., in the picture of the triumphal arch he is first made to 
gecupy the exact center as a Savious (see dje bildl. Darstellungen im Sanctnarium d, 


2 we 


CHAP. ¥.—PUBLIC WORSHIP. § 100. HOLY PLACES. 429 


§ 100. 
PLACES AND TIMES OF PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


Since basilicae' had frequently been converted into churches 
after the time of Constantine, and churches had been built in 
the form of basilicae,’ the name basilica was also the more 
readily transferred to the churches themselves,’ because it was 
susceptible in this instance of a signification so appropriate. 
The churches, now large and splendid, were divided into three 
parts: the vdpOné (mpdvaoc, ferula) porch, from which the beau- 
tiful gates, miAat Gpaia (according to Acts ili. 2-10), led into 
the body of the church, vadc, navis (where was the dyGwy, pul- 
pitum), which again was divided from the (ja, sacrarium, sac- 
risty, by cancelli, xvyxAidec, a lattice-work. 'There were usu- 
ally other buildings attached to the churches, and especially a 
baptistery, Bantior#piov, with the font, piscina, fons, coAvuBjOpa. 
All the buildings were situated in an inclosed court (aiOpror, 

_avAn, atrium), in which was also a reservoir or large vessel of 
water («pijvn, cantharus) for washing the hands hetar entering 
the church, after the ancient, originally Jewish fashion. 


christl. Kirchen vom 5ten bis zum 14ten Jahrh. von J. G. Miller. Trier. 1835. 8. S. 42, 
ss.). These Salvator-pictures continue for a long time the only ones. Pictures of the 
crucified, the Eece-homo, the.dead Christ in the bosom of the mother, belong to the middle 
ages. The caput radiatum or the nimbus was taken from heathen and transferred to 
Christian art." See Schoepflint Comment. hist. et crit. p. 69, Miinter’s Sinnbilder, ii. 28.— 
The Thomas-Christians in India suppose that Cyril introduced the to them hateful pictures. 
See La Croze Hist. du Christianisme des Indes, a la Haye, 1724. 4. p. 243. ee 
but it is a vatuarksble fact that it is also related by the Copt Elmacin (about 1250) on 
whose authority it is repeated by Makriz (about 1400). (See Renaudot Hist. Patr. Alex. 
p. 114, Makrizii Hist. Coptorum ed. Wetzer. Solisb. 1828. 8. p. 53.) On any supposition, 
it is historically established that pictures were introduced into churches in the time of 
Cyril. ‘ 

1 The Roman basilica, an imitation of the orod BactAKh in Athens, éonatatad partly of 
an oblong four-cornered space, which served principally for a place of merchandise, and _ 
partly of a second space situated over against the entrance which formed a semicircle, and 
in which a court was held, the so called tribunal. See Vitruv. v. i. - Hirt’s Baukunst, iii. 
180. Dr. F. Kugler’s Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte. Stuttgart. 1842. 

? On the form of the churches, see the description of the city of Rome by Platner, 
Bunsen, Gerhard, and Réstell, i. 419. Die Basiliken des christl. Roms. Hoh amin u 
Erklarung (von Bunsen). Miinchen. 1843. fol. 

* Hieronymus Ep. 35; epitaph. Nepotiani: basilicas ecclesiae. 


430. SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 324-451. 


Fasts, hitherto voluntary, were now prescribed by the 
Church. Festival days were more regularly arranged, and, at 
the same time, multiplied. In the east, the Epiphany was cel- 
ebrated as the festival’ both of the birth and baptism of our . 
Lord; in the west, the 25th December had been adopted as the 
birth-day ever since the middle ef the fourth century ;° the cus- 


* The older and more liberal view (see Div. I. § 73, note 1) is still maintained by Victor 
~ Antiochenus (about 400), Comm. in Ev. Marci, c. 2 (Bibl. PP. max. t. iv.): Enimvero inter 
eos, qui in Moysis, et eos rursum, qui in gratiae lege jejuniis dant operam, hoc praeter 
caetera interest, quod illi quidem jejunia a Deo praefinita habebant, quae proinde modis 
omnibus explere obligabantur, etiamsi alias noluissent; hi vero virtutis amore, liberaque 
_ voluntatis electione jejunant verius, quam ulla legis coactione. Quodsi vero quadragesi- 
male vel aliud quodcunque jejanium definitum habemus, propter ignavos et negligentes, 
quo nimirum quoque ii officium faciant, praefinitum habemus. Chrysostomus Hom. lii. in 
eos qui primo Pascha jejunant. Cassianus Collat. xxi. c. 30: Sciendum sane hanc obser- 
vantiam quadragesimae, quamdiu ecclesiae illius primitivae perfectio inviolata permansit, 
penitus non fuisse. Non enim praecepti hujus necessitate nec quasi legali sanctione 
constricti, erctissimis jejuniorum terminis claudebantur, qui tetum anni spatium aequali 
jejunio concludebant. Socrates, v.22. On the contrary Epiphanius Haer. lxxv. 6, Expos. 
fidei, c. 22, derives the Wednesday and Friday fasts from an apostolic arrangement. 
Hieronymus Ep, 27 (al. 54), ad Marcellam: Nos unam quadragesimam secundum tradi- 
tionem Apostolorum, toto nobis orbe congruo, jejunamus. Leo P. Serm. 43, de Quadrages. 
6: Apostolica institutio xl. dierum jejunio impleatur. While in the Oriental church all 
fasting was prohibited on the Saturday, the custom of fasting on this day arose in the 
west, especially in Rome, perhaps even in the third century (Neander, i..i. 510: Ter- 
tullian de Jejun. c. 14, does not, however, prove this. See my remarks in the Theol. Stud. 
und Kritik. 1833, iv. 1149). In the fourth century, Saturday as a-fast day entirely took the 
place. of Wednesday at Rome (Innocent I. Ep. 25, ad Dicentium. ec, 4, Augustini Ep. 36, 
ad Casulanum). Cf. Quesnel. Diss. de Jejunio Sabbati in Eccl. Rom. Dpanareney in his 
edition of the Opp. Leonis, il. 544. 

5 Cassian. Collat. x. c. 2: Intra Aegypti regionem mos iste antiqua traditione servatur, 
ut, peracto Epiphaniorum die, quem proyinciae illius sacerdotes vel dominici baptismi, vel 
secundum carnem nativitatis esse definiunt, et idcirco utriusque sacramenti solemnitatem 
non bifarie, ut in occiduis provinciis, sed sub una diei hujus festivitate concelebrant, epis- 
tolae pontificis Alexandrini per universas dirigantur Aegypti ecclesias, quibus et initium 
quadragesimae et dies paschae non solum per civitates omnes, sed etian! per universa 
monasteria designentur. 

6 According to Epist. Johannis Episc. Nicaeni, i in the auctar. Bibl. Patr. ed. Coathelisinn, 
t. ii. p. 297, and an Anonymus ap. Cotelerius ad Constitt. Apost. v. 13, which, however, 
are too modern to be regarded as proper witnesses, although they certainly come near the 
truth, this day was established by Julius, bishop of Rome (337-352)... An expression of 
his successors, Liberius (352-366) in Salvatoris Natali is adduced by Ambrosius de Virgini- 
bus, iii. c. 1.. Even an ancient Syrian in Assemani Bibl. orient. ii. 164, states that the 
natalis solis invicti falling on this day (Wintet-solstice, according to the erroneous reckon- 
ing of the Julian calendar on the 25th December, see Ideler’s Chronologie, ii. 24), was the 
reason why the natalis Christi was assigned to the same day. So also Jo. Harduin (Acta 
SS. Junii iv. 702, D.) and especially Jablonski de Origine festi nativit. Christi. diss. ij. § 2 
(Opusce. ed. te Water, iii. 348). Even so late as the times of Leo the Great, there were 
many in Rome quibus haec die solemnitatis nostrae non tam de nativitate Christi, quam de 
novi, ut dicunt, solis ortu honorabilis videatur (Leonis M. Sermo xxi. ¢..6). According to 
Credner de Natalitiorum Christi et ritaum in hoe festo celebrande solemnium origine, in 
Illgen’s Zeitschr. f, d. hist. Theol. iii. il. die, this festival began in Egypt in the ees 
eentury. 


CHAP. V.—PUBLIC WORSHIP. § 100. HOLY TIMES, 431 


tom proceeding from Rome and spreading into’ the different 
parts of the empire. This festival began now to obtain in the 
east ;’ and at last, also (shortly before 431) in Egypt.’ The 
Epiphany was observed in addition as the day of baptism, and 
came to be kept as such even in the west.’ ‘The celebration of 
the passover, as customary in Asia Minor, had been rejected at 
the council of Nice ;‘° and since that time, those who still re- 
tained it were regarded as heretics, Tesoapeokaidexatita, Quar- 
todecimani."' With respect to the appointment of the Easter 
festival, they followed for the most part the patriarch of Alex- 
andria ;'* yet not always, especially in the west; and thus 
Easter was sometimes observed on different Sundays in different 
provinces.!? The Paschal festival, which was announced at the 


7 For example, in Antioch about 380. Chrysost. Hom. 31, de Natali Christi (ed. Montfanc. 
ii. 355): Odtw déxarév éariv éEroc, 2§ ob d7An Kal yvapiyoc Huiv airy H Huépa yeyévvntat. 
What follows furnishes a remarkable illustration of the ease with which customs of a 
recent date could. assume the character of apostolic institutions : Ilapa pév roi¢ tiv 
torépay oixotow Grobler -yvopilouévy—narhaia Kai dpyaia éoti, nat dvallev Toig xd 
Opdkne uéxpe Tadcipwv oixodor xarddyrog Kai éxionuog yéyove. 

8 Comp. Cassian Collat. x. 2, above, note 5. On the other hand, in the Acts of the 
Ephesian council (ap. Mansi, iv. 293) Pauli Episc. Emiseni homilia Aey@eica x Kordx 
(25 Dec.) év trav peydAn éxxdAgoia ’AXetavdpciac—eic trav yévynotv Tod Kvupiov, k. T. A. 
About the same time under bishop Juvenalis the festival was also adopted in Jerusalem, 
which was united with Alexandria against Antioch. See Basilides Seleuc. de S. Stephano, 
in 8. Joannis Chrysostomi de Educandis liberis lib. ejusdem tractatus alii quingue, etc. ed. 
Franc. Combefis. Paris. 1656, 8. p. 302. : 

*-The first trace of it is in 360, when Julian, according to Ammian. Marcell. xxi. ec. 2, 
celebrated the Epiphany in the church at Vienne. In the west, the commemoration of the 


‘ arrival of the Magi (i. e., three kings, according to Psalm lxxii. 10) and the first miracle in 


Cana were united with this feast. Bingham, vol. ix. p. 80.. Neander, ii. ii. 657, ss. 

10 Comp. Div. I. § 60, note 15. Constantini Epist. ad ecclesias de decretis syn. Nic. 
(ap. Eusebius de vita Const. iii. 18) et Epist. Syn. Nic. ad eccl. Alexandr. ap. Socrates, i. 9: 
‘Oc xdvrac tod év 7H EGU GdEAgGodc Todo weTa TOV “lovdaiwy Td mMpéTEpoY ToLodvTac; 
Guuddvac ‘Pauaiote Kal jiv—té mdoxa éx Tow detpo dyev. There is nothing more 
precise on the subject. This Nicene decree was confirmed by the Conc. Autioch. ann. 
341, can. 1... ‘ 

i The name first occurs in Conc. Laodic. (about 364) can. 7. Conc. Constant. oec. ii. 
ann. 381, c. 2. Epiphan. Haer. 50. On the other hand, Philastrius Haer. 87, knows 


nothing of it. 


12 Leonis Ep. 121 (ed. Quesn. 94): Paschale festum—quamvis in primo semper mense 


-celebrandum sit, ita tamen est lunaris cursus conditione mutabile, ut plerumque sacratissi- 


mae diei ambigua occurrat electio, et ex hoc fiat pleramque quod non licet, ut non simul 
omnis Ecclesia quod nonnisi unum esse oportet observet. Studuerunt itaque sancti Patres 
oceasionem -hujus erroris auferre,.omnem hanc curam Alexandrino Episcopo delegantes 
(quoniam apud Aegyptios hujus supputationis antiquitus tradita esse videbatur peritia), 
per quem quotannis dies praedictae solemnitatis Sedi apostolicae indicaretur; cujus scriptis 
ad longinquiores Ecclesias indicium generale percurreret. 

13 Ambrosii Ep. 23 (al. 83). On the different paschal cycles see Bingham, vol. ix. p. 99. 
Ideler’s Chronologie, Bd. 2, 8. 200, ss. In Alexandria a cycle of nineteen years invented 
by Anatolius was used (évyveaxaidexaetypic). In Rome, to the time of Leo the Great, 


. 


432 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—AD. 924-451. 


Rointiany, was preceded by the Quadragesima (reocapatoorj)!* 
and divided into the méoya oravpéomov, hebdomas magna, the 
great week, in which the feria quinta (7 éyia méunrn), the 
mapacxevy, and the Sabbatum magnum were distinguished from 
“one another; and into the néoya dvaordoor, the week of the 
resurrection, which ended with the Dominica in albis («acvi 
«vpraxh). This festival was followed by the Quinquagesima 
(mevrncoot), Which included the ascension (dvéAmyuc), and ended 
with pentecost. (mevrqxoor). 

The nightly service (vigiliae, tayvvyidec) which preceded the 
Easter festival was observed with great splendor ;’° but now 
similar vigils were also annexed to other festivals, especially to 
those in honor of martyrs. 


§ 101. 


RITES AND CEREMONIES OF WORSHIP. 


Christian worship was now invested with a splendor hitherto 
unknown. The clergy began to wear a peculiar costume while 
engaged in holy things.’ In some of the services lights were 


and in the west, the cycle of eighty-four years. With the Alexandrians, Easter festival 
must fall between 22d March and 25th April; with the Latins, between the 18th March 
and the 2ist April. Hence there was a difference in the keeping of Easter, and hence 
‘arose the discussions respecting it. Ideler, ii. 254, ff- For this reason, Leo M. Ep. 121 
(see note 12), applied to the emperor Marcian: Obsecro clementiam vestram, ut studium 
vestrum praestare dignemini,. quatenus Aegyptii, vel si qui sunt alii, qui certam hujus 
supputationis Videntur habere notitiam, scrupulum hujus solicitudinis absolvant, ut in eum 
diem generalis observantia dirigatur, qui nec paternarum constitutionum normam relinquat, 
nec ultra praefixos terminos evagetur. Quicquid autem pietas vestra de hac consultatione 
cognoverit, ad meam jubeat mox notitiam pervenire, ut in divinis mysteriis nulla dissonan- 
tide culpa nascatur. 

14 Among ‘the Orientals seven weeks, among the Westerns who fasted also on the 
Sabbath (see above, note 6) six; in both cases, therefore, thirty-six days. Cassiani 
Collat. xxi. 24, 25 (qui substantiaram nostrarum omniumque fractuum decimas offerre 
praecipimur, multo magis necesse est, ut ipsius quoque conversationis nostrae, et humani 
usus, operumque nostrorum decimas offeramus, quae profecto in supputatione quadragesi- 
mae implentur),-27, 28. _Comp. Socrates, v. 22. 

18 Buseb. de vit. Const. iv. 22. Gregor. Nyss. Orat. 5, de Paschate Gregor. Naz. Orat. 
19 et 42. 

1 All the clergy wore the orzydptov (vestis alba tunica) ; bishops, presbyters, and dea- 
cons wore over that the pdpiov (according to Jo. Morinus de sacris Ecclesiae ordinationi- 
bus, p. 174, @pdprov, according to Suicer. Thes. eccl. ii. 498, épdépiov lat. orarium, afterward 
Stola), bishops and presbyters over that the geAd6vy¢ or gaiAovnc (planeta, casula; comp. 
Morinus, p. 176. Suicer. ii. 1422). The Gyodédprov (pallium) distinguished the bishops in 


CHAP. V.—PUBLIC WORSHIP. §101. HOLY RITES. 433 


also used in the day-time ;* and in the fifth century frankincense 
began to be employed.’ More attention was paid to the music. 
The custom of ‘singing in responses, first introduced into the 
Church at Antioch,* soon spread in the east, and was transfer- 
red to the Western Church by Ambrose.* The disciplina ar- 
cant (distinction between the initiated and uninitiated) reached 
its highest development in the fourth ‘century,® but afterward 
gradually disappeared as heathenism ceased. Public worship 
(Aecrovpyia,” missa)* was divided on account of it into several 


the east; in the west it was not yet in use (cf. Pertsch de Origine, usu et auctoritate 
pallii archiepiscopalis. Helmst. 1754. 4. p. 91, ss). That no tonsure was ever practiced 
either by monks or clergymen may be inferred from Hieronymus ad Ezech. xliv. 20: Quod 
sequitur; caput suum non radent neque comam nutrient, sed tondentes attondebunt capita 
sua, perspicue demonstratur, nec rasis capitibus, sicut sacerdotes cultoresque Isidis ac 
Serapis nos esse debere, nec rursum comam demittere, quod proprie luxuriosorum est, 
barbarorumque et militantium, sed ut honestus habitus sacerdotum facie demonstretur, etc. 
Comp. Bingham, vol. ii. p. 413, iii. 50. ; 

2 Before the relics of martyrs, and in the east also during the reading of the Gospel., See 
Hieronymus adv. Vigilantium. Lactantius (Institutt. vi. 2) still mocks the heathens on 
account of it. : 

3 The first certain trace of it is found in Pseudo-Dionys. Areop. de Eccl. hier. c. 3. It 
had been used before as a mark of honor to the emperors. See § 99, note 4. 

* According to Theodoretus H.E. ii.19. Flavianus and Diodorus, two monks in An- 
tioch, in the time of Constantius, were its originators: Odroe mparot, duyq dreddvTec Tov¢g 
TOV Wardovtav yopore, ék Stadoyjc ade THY Aavtixyy édidakav pedwdiav’ Kai TodTO 
éy ’Avtioyeia mpOrov dpfduevov mavtoce Oiédpaue, ai KarédaBe THC oikovpévync Ta Tép- 
pata. According to Theodore of Mopsvestia in Nicetae Acomin. Thesaurus orthodoxiae, 
v. 30, they first only translated Antiphonies from the Syriac into Greek: and Socrates, vi. 
8, attributes the first introduction of this kind of music to Ignatius (Augusti Diss. de hymnis 
Syrorum. Vratisl. 1814. 8. Hahn iiber den Gesang in der syrischen Kirche, in the Kirchen- 
hist. Archive fiir 1823, iii. 52). The custom of singing in responses was especially diffused 
by the monks (7d dvtidwvor, dvtidwvor tuvor). Comp. generally M. Gerbertus de Cantu 
et musica sacra (tomi ii. typis San-Blasianis, 1774. 4), i. 40. Schone’s Geschichtsforschun- 
gen uber die kirchl. Gebrauche, ii. 191. 

5 Augustini Confess. ix. 6, 7. Paulinus in vita Ambros. p.iv. On the musical character 
of the Ambrosian singing see Kiesewetter’s Gesch. d. europaisch-abendlandischen Musik. 
Leipzig. 1834. 4. 8. 3. 

6 Comp. Div. I. § 67, note 3. Basilius de Spir. sancto, c.27. Comp. especially Cyrilli 


-Hieros. catecheses. Hence the formula so frequent among the orators, icaciv of ueuvy- 


pévot or of cuupiorat, in opposition to the duiyrot: in Augustine, norant fideles : From- 
mann de Disciplina arcani, p. 43. 

7 Comp. Suiceri Thes. eccl. ii. 220. Bingham, v. 16, particularly the solemnity of the 
Lord’s Supper, but in other respects every religious service too. 

8 Missa, i. e. missio: as remissa, offensa, for remissio, offensto. Avitus (archbishop of 
Vienne about 490) in Epist.i.: In Ecclesiis, Palatiisque, sive Praetoriis missa fieri pro- 
nunciatur, cum populus ab observatione dimittitur. In the first part of the service, which 
consisted of psalms, readings, and sermon, even the unbelieving portion of the people were 
permitted to join. After their retiring, the proper missa catechumenorum followed, which 
was a series of prayers, whereby the catechumens, penitents, and possessed, were dis- 
missed in classes (by the call of dxowdynro: wepimatqoate. uy Tic TOY KaTHYoULEVW?), 
ete. (Cf..Conc. Carthag. iv.ann. 398, can. 84: Ut Episcopus nullum prohibeat ingredi 


VOL. h-=eete 


434 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D. 324-453. 


parts (missa catechumenorum, and missa fidelium),’ and re- 
ceived more definite formularies.'° 

Baptism, now preceded by unction, was frequently delayed 
as long as possible.'' Against this abuse several teachers of the 
Church zealously remonstrated.’* The baptism of infants did 


Ecclesiam, et audire verbum Dei, sive gentilem, sive haereticum, sive Judaeum, usque 
ad missam catechumenorum. <Augustini Sermo 49,§ 8: Ecce post sermonem fit missa 
catechumenis : manebunt fideles, venietur ad locum orationis). According to this analogy, 
the last part of public worship was called missa fidelium, i. e., the service with which 
the fideles were dismissed, and which ended with the call éroAdece, ite, missa est (this 
dismissal was among the Greeks, 7 dméAvot¢ tie éxKAgoiac). Since the last part was 
the most important, it was also called in particular missa (cf. Ambrosii Ep. 20, al. 14, ad 
Marcellinam sororem: post lectiones atque tractatum dimissis catechumenis—missam 
facere coepi). Finally the name was transferred to every public service. Thus it is ap- 
plied to the meetings of the monks for prayer, Cassian. Institt. ii. c. 13, missa nocturna, iii. 
c. 5, missa canonica. 

9 See note 8. The Greeks distinguished the parts of public worship in a different man- 
ner. See Conc. Laodic. can. 19: Ilepi rod deiv idig mpGrov werd tag dutaAiacg Tov ‘Emt- 
oKérar, kal Tov KaTnxoumévan ebyny Ercredrciobal, Kai wera TO &eABeiv Tove KaTHYoU- 
uévove TOv év petavoia tHv ebynv yivecOal, Kal TobTwv TpoceAOévTar bird yeipa Kat 
broxwpnodvtar obtwc Tv TMiaTOv Tag ebytc yivecOat TpEic,—Kail wera TO IpecButépove 
dotvar TO ’Exioxérw tHv eiphynv, TéTe Tove Aaikode THY eipnyyny Sidbval, Kai obTw THY 
dyiav xpoogopay éritedeiobat. 

10 The arrangement of public worship and. single formularies had been already estab- 
lished for a long time ; but now there were added to them formularies of prayer too; com- 
plete liturgies were made, and those of the apostolic churches were soon derived from 
their founders. Proclus Episc. Constantinop. (about 440) de traditione divinae Missae (in 
Gallandii Bibl. PP. ix. 680: TloAAot wav tivég Kal GAdoe TOV Tode lepode ’ATooTAoUE 
dtadeSapévuv Oeior wotmévec kai duddoxadhor Tig "ExkAnotag THY Th¢ wOTLKIG AeLTovpyiac 
ExOeow éyypabug Katadinovrec, TH’ExkAnoia wapadeddxaow. %&€ Oy 62 mpHrox obrot 
Kal d.arptotoe Tvyxavovoy 6,re pwaxdproc KAjune, 6 Tob Kopydaiov THv *ArocTéAwy 
palnrnc kai diddoxoc, abtO THv lepGv ’ArooréAwy ixayopevodvtwy. (This is the liturgy 
found in the Constitut. apost. viii. 16, the oldest extant.) «al 6 Oeioc "IdxwBog, 6 ti¢ ‘lepo- 
codvuitav ’ExkAgoiag Tov KAjpov Aaydv.—'O 62 uéyag Bacihevog wera Tadta Td péOvuov 
kat Katwgepic TGv dvOpdrwv OewpGr, kai bid TodTO Td Tij¢ AetTovpyiac uKog dKkvobYTwY, 
—énitoyatepoy mapédwke AéyeoPat.—Mer’ ob rod d& wddev 6 huétepoe matHp 6 THY 
yAarrav xypvootc "lwadvync—eic tiv tij¢ dvOpwrivyac dicews Pabvuiay éoopGv—ra TOAAa 
émérepe, Kal ovvToudrepoy TEAeiobar dueTésaro. In the fifth century the liturgy of Basil 
had been spread almost over all the east. But in addition to it, that of Chrysostom also, 
proceeding from Constantinople, gradually obtained acceptance. The Alexandrians de- 
rived their liturgy from Mark, the Romans from Peter, the Milanese from Barpabas and 
Ambrose. No liturgy of this period, with the exception of that in the Constitutt. apost., 
has been preserved free from alteration. Comp. Leonis Alatii de Libris ecclesisticis 
Graecorum, diss. ii. Paris. 1645. 4. (with Fabricius’ remarks in the old edition of his Bib- 
lioth. graeca, appended to vol. v.)’ Jac. Goar evyoAdéyiov s. rituale Graecorum. Paris. 
1647, and Venet. 1730. fol. Eus. Renaudotii Liturgiarum orientalium collectio, t. ii. Paris. 
1716. 4. J. A. Assemani Codex liturgicus Eccl. universae, p. vi. Romae. 1749, ss. 4. 

1 Constitutt. apostoll. vii. c. 41. Cyrill. Hieros. Catech. myst. ii.c. 3 et 4. This unction 
was with éAaiw dyiw; the unction after baptism, which had been practiced before (see 
Div. I. § 53, note 25), with wipe or ypiouati, see Suicer. Thes. eccl. i. 1077, ii. 1534. Bing- 
ham, vol. iv. p. 303. 

12 Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. 40. Comp. Ullmann’s Gregor v. Naz. 8. 466, ss. (On the 
baptism of children: Aidwyt yvdunv, tiv TpleTiav dvaysivavtac—jvika Kat dKotoat TL 


CHAP. V.—PUBLIC WORSHIP. §101. THE LORD’S SUPPER. 435 


not become universal until after the time of Augustine. The 
baptism of heretics was still, in the fourth century, rejected 
for the most part in the east; and afterward the baptism of 
single parties only was excepted.’ On the contrary Augus- 
tine established the milder practice of the west on firm prin- 
ciples." 

As to the Lord’s Supper, the Christians of that period recog- 
nized in it the flesh and blood of Christ, and even spoke of a 
transformation ; but only in a figurative sense.’® As this rite 


mvotixov, Kal droxpivecbat duvatov,—ottug ayidfev.) Basilii M. Orat. 13.- (Walli 
Hist. bapt. infant. i. 136, 181.) Gregorii Nyss. Orat. in eos qui differunt Baptaqangy. 
Chrysostom (Neander’s Chrys. i. 74). 

18 Comp. Div. I. § 72, note 22. Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Basil rejected it. 
Miinscher’s Dogmengesch. iv. 368. The Synod of Laodicea, can. 7, and the second oecu- 
menical Synod of Constantinople, can. 7, made exceptions, whose consistency is not 
obvious. Comp. Drey iiber apost. Constit. §. 260. Gass, in Illgen’s Zeitschr. f. hist. 
Theol. 1842, iv. 120. 

34 Augustinus de Baptismo contra Donatistas, vi. 47: Dicimus, baptismum Christi, i. e. 
verbis. evangelicis consecratum, ubiqne eundem esse, nec hominum quorumlibet et qualibet 
perversitate violari. C.61: Manifestum est, iniquos, quamdiu iniqui sunt, baptismum 
quidem posse habere; sed salutem, cujus sacramentum baptisma est, habere non posse. 
C. 78: Dicimus, accipientibus non prodesse (baptismum), cum in haeresi accipiunt con- 
sentientes haereticis: et ideo veniunt ad catholicam pacem atque unitatem, non ut baptis- 
mum accipiant, sed ut eis prodesse incipiat quod acceperant. 

15 We find the expressions: weraBoAj, yweTtaBaAdAccbat, petapopdodcbar, ueTacrot- 
xecodoGa: (similar expressions with regard to the consecrated oil, Miinscher, iv. 387,.and 
the baptismal water, same author, p. 352. Wundemann, ii. 417), and again, rizoc, avti- 
turov, figura, signum. Hence all churches appeal to the fathers in their favor. Comp. 
especially the dispute between A. Arnauld, P. Nicole (chief work, la Perpétuité de la foi 
de V’église catholique touchant l’eucharistie, 3 t. 1669-1672; t. 4 et 5, par Hus. Renaudot, 
1711-1713. 4), and J. Claude (Résponse aux deux traités intitalés: la Perpétuité, etc. 
Charent. 1666. Réponse au livre de M. Arnauld jntitulé: la Perpétuité, ete. Charent. 
1671. 2 voll. 8). Clear passages on this subject are: Augustinus Epist. 98 (al. 23), ad 
Bonifacium, § 9: Nempe saepe ita loquimur, ut Pascha propinquante dicamus crastinam 
vel perendinam Domini passionem, cum ille ante tam multos annos passus sit, nec omnino 
nisi semel illa passio facta sit—Nonne seme] immolatus est Christus in se ipso, et tameén 
in sacramento non solum per omnes Paschae solemnitates, sed omni die populis immola- 
tur, nec utique mentitur, qui interrogatus eum responderit immolari? Si enim sacramenta 
quandam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino 
sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum 
nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi 
corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum 
fidei fides est. Contra Adimantum Manich c. 12: Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere 
‘hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret corporis sui. Ad Ps. iii: Figuram corporis et 
sanguinis sui, in Joan. tract. xxvi. 18: Qui non manet in Christo, et in quo non manet 
Christus, procul dubio nec manducat carnem ejus, nec bibit ejus sanguinem, etiamsi tantae 
rei sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducet et bibat (so all MSS. The editions have in- 
terpolations). Cf. contra Faustum, xx. c.18 and 21. De Doctrina christiana, iii. 16.. A 
fragment in Fulgentius im Bibl. max. PP. t. ix. p.177,s. While the Catholic theologians 
endeavor to explain away. these passages by a forced interpretation, P: de Marca, in his 
Traité du sacrament de l’Eucharistie (published after bis death by his relative, the abbot 
Paul Faget, Paris, 1668, and though suppressed soon, reprinted in the Netherlands), can 


436 ‘SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 324-451. 


was looked upon in the light of a sacrifice,’ the idea was natu- 
rally suggested, that God eould be propitiated by it, and in this 
way it was even already abused, and that frequently, by super- 
stition.'? The Agapae had been, for a considerable time past, 
in most countries separated from the Supper,** and converted 


didly acknowledged that the fathers, to Chrysostom, and particularly Augustine, did not 
teach the doctrine of transubstantiation. Very clear passages on this subject are fur- 
nished by the polemical demonstrations against Eutyches and the Monophysites, so far as 
they had been always accustomed to compare the union of the earthly with the heavenly 
‘in the Supper, with the incarnation of Christ, and now borrowed a proof from the rite in 
favor of the fact, that the human nature in Christ did not cease’ to exist after the union. 
So Theodoreti Eranistes, Dial. ii. (ed. Schulze, t. iv. p. 126): Odd? wera Tov dytacpor TA 
pvoTika oipBora tipg oixetac éSioratar dbcewc’ péver yap ext Tie mpoTépac ovoiac Kal 
Tov oyHuaToc, Kal Tod eldove'—voeirat 2 Urep éyéveTo, Kal TLoTEbEeTaL Kal TpaCcKvvEtTal, 
O¢ éxetva bvta Grep mioreberat, First to this controversy is to be assigned Chrysostom’s 
Epis. ad Caesarium, although even Leontius Hierosolym. (or Byzantium, about 600) ir 
Maji Scriptt. vett. coll. vii. i. 130, 135, Joannes Damasc., and others, cite this letter as be- 
longing to Chrysostom. The same is preserved in Latin, in a codex Florentinus, and was 
first discovered and employed by Peter Martyr. The first edition by Bigot (appended to 
Palladii vita Chrysostom, see above, § 85, note 6), was torn out of the copies by-royat 
command (see Chaufepié and Bayle, in their Dictionnaires, art. Bigot). The second edition 
appeared, according to a copy of Scipio Maffei, with Greek fragments, in Canisii Lectt. 
ant ed. Basnage, i.235, Comp. especially Salig de Eutychianismo ante Eutychen, p. 367. 
In this letter it is said: Antequam sanctificetur panis, panem nominamus, divina autemr 
illum sanctificante gratia, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est quidem appellatione panis, 
dignus autem habitus est dominici corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso per- 
mansit. Comp. R. Hospiniani Historia sacramentaria (t. ii. Tiguri. 1602. Genev. 1681. 
fol:). J. A. Ernesti Antimuratorius, 1755 (Opusc. theol. p. 1). Minscher, iv. 377. Wunde- 
mann, ii. 419. How value was still attributed to the fact, that the laity also received the 
cup, may be seen from Leo I. Sermo iv. de Quadrages. (§ 86, note 6}. Chrysostom. in 
Epist. ii.ad Cor. Hom. 18: *Eorz 08. drov obd? dtéoTyKev 6 lepede Tod dpxouévov, oiov 
érav drohabew déy TOv SpikT@v pvotnpiov’ duoiwe yap Tévte¢ Gfobuebu TOY abTor: 
ov Kabarep eri THe maAade Ta Mev 6 lepede Hobie, TA O& 6 Gpyopevoc, Kal Oéute obk Fv 
TO Aad pstéxety, Ov wereixer 6 iepedco: GAd’ ob viv- GAAG Gow Ev cdua TpbKertrat, Kak 
moTHpLov &v. i 
16 How far, see Minscher, iv. 400. Wundemann, ii. 441. Neander’s K. G. ii. ii. 707. 
17 Especially as the bread was often taken home (in Egypt universally, see Basilii Ep. 
93, ad Caesarium). Thus Satyrus, brother of Ambrose, during a shipwreck, took the holy 
bread, ligari fecit in orario, et orarium involvit collo, utque ita se dejecit in mare :—his se 
tectum atque munitum satis credens, alia auxilia non desideravit (Ambrosius de Obitu 
fratris sui Satyri, c. 13): A certain Acatius (August. Opus imp. contra Julian. iii. c. 162), 
related to Augustine that he had been born blind, and a surgeon was about to perform an 
operation for him, neque hoc permisisse religiosam matrem suam, sed id effecisse impositio 
ex Encharistia cataplasmate. Comp. Gregor. Naz. Orat. xi. in laudem Gorgoniae, p. 186, 
s. Epist. 240. Comp. Miinscher, iv. 403. Wundemann, ii. 446. Neander, ii. ii. 705. In 
like manner ‘the heathen, cf. Etym. Magn.: ‘Yyieav Kadotow ’ATTikol Ta Tedvpayéva 
olive kal tAaiw GAdita Kal wav 6,7t 8 lepod dépetat, olov OaAAdv tiva 7} dAema. 
Simplicius (about 530) Comm. ad Epictet. c..38, ed. Schweigh. p. 351: Ta tpocayéueva 
kal dvaribéueva—perarauBdver Kai aita tig Oeiag ayabérnroc, Wc Kai Oeiac évepyeiac 
éxideixvvcba. Kal yap éxiampiacg Tic Ouordbynoev GrnAAGyOat Kai Tio TéY ToLObTwY 
ustadpbewc, Kal yahdlac Kat Oardoone KAddwvac Exavoe. Cf. Lobeck Aglaophamus, i. 
p- 766, ssi 
18 As it was now an ecclesiastical law that the: Lord’s Supper should be taken fasting, 


CHAP. V—PUBLIC WORSHIP. § 101. AGAPAE. 437 


into entertainments which families prepared on the death of rel- 
atives, churches on the anniversaries of martyrs, and at which 
clergy and poor were regular guests.’ But because the heathen 
notions of the people found in them the reappearance of their Pa- 
rentalia and sacrificial festivals, drunkenness soon pervaded 
them.” Hence they began to be discountenanced and opposed, 


4 

#0 it was also believed that even in the time of the Apostles the agapae were observed 
after the Supper. Chrysost. Hom. xxvii. in 1 Cor. (on xi. 27); Pelagius in 1 Cor. xi. 20; 
Theodoret. in 1 Cor. xi. 16.—Remains of the old custom were still found in several parts 
of Egypt, in which the Lord’s Supper was observed on the Sabbath, after the evening 
meal, Socrates, v. 22; Sozom. vii..19; and in the African mode to celebrate the Supper 
after the evening meal on the Thursday before Easter. Conc. Carthag. iii. ann. 397, c. 29: 
Ut sacramenta altaris nonnisi a jejunis hominibus celebrentur, excepto uno die anniver- 
sario, quo coena domini celebratur. Cf. Augustin. Ep. 54, ad Januarium, c. 9. 

19 Comment. in Job (among the works of Origen, belonging to.the fourth century), lib. 
iii. p. 437: Celebramus (diem mortis) religiosos cum sacerdotibus convocantes, fideles una 
cum clero, invitantes adhue egenos et pauperes, pupillos et viduas saturantes, ut fiat fes- 
tivitas nostra in memoriam requiei defunctis animabus, quarum memoriam celebramus, 
nobis autem efficiatur in odorem suavitatis in conspectu aeterni Dei. Augustini Ep. xxii. 
ad Aureliam, c. 6: Istae in coemeteriis ebrietates et luxuriosa convivia non solum honores 
martyrum a carnali et imperita plebe credi solent, sed etiam solatia mortuorum. Id: contra 
Faustum, xx. 20: Agapes nostrae pauperes pascunt sive frugibus, sive earnibus—plerum- 
que in agapibus etiam carnes pauperibus erogantar. Theodoret. Graec. affect. curat. disp. 
viii. (ed. Schulze, iv. 923): ’Av7i tév ILavdiwv cai Acaciov Kai Atovuciav Kai Tév dAdwy 
iuav éoptov, Tétpev «ai WatAcv—xai ’Avtwrivov cai Mavpixiov cai tov dAAwY pap- 
tipov émitedodvtar Onyoboviar~ Kai dvti tio waAat TouTeiacg Kai aicypovpyiac— 
waddpovec éoptalovrar mavynyipetc, ob wébnv syovoat, Kai KOuwv, Kai yédwra, GAR’ 
@uvove Oeiovc, kat lepdv Aoyiwy axpdaciv, kat mpocevynv akiexaivore Koopouuévyv 
Saxptorc. Juliani Imp. fragm. (ed. Spanhem. p. 305): ‘Qorep of ra radia did rod 
rhaxobvtog éaratévrec—relOovow axodovbeiv éavtoic'—rtov abrév Kat abrol xporov 
epiduevor (ot dvoceBeic Tadrdaior) did rij¢ Aeyouévync rap’ abroic aydrne Kal brodoyie 
Kal dtaxoviag tparelOv—rioTove éxyyayov sic THY GOcdzyTa. The use of these Agapae 
*was defended by the council of Gangra against the darker asceticism of the Eustathians. 
Can. 11: El tig xara¢povoin tév éx miotewe dydxac TolotyTwv Kai O1a TYuAY Tod Kupiov 
ovyKahobytwy Tove ddeAgode, Kai uy 26204 KoLtvwreiv Taic KAqoEoL, bia TH eFevTEAiverw 
TO yivouevor, Gvdbeua éoTo. 

20 Even teachers of the church compared them with those heathen festivities. “See 
Theodoret, note 19. Chrysostom (Hom. xlvii. in 8. Julianum) advises his hearers to par- 
take of the meal to be appointed in honor of the martyr beside his church (rod waprupiov 
tAnotov ixd cvxiy } duredov), instead of joining in the heathen feasts in Daphne,’ a 
suburb of Antioch. ‘Hence some even supposed that they had been appointed by their 
ancestors as a substitute for those heathen banquets. See Gregorius Nyss. in vita Gregor. 
Thaumat. Div. I. § 70, note 9. So also Augustine explains the origin of them to his church 
(Ep. xxix. ad Alypium, c. 9): Post persecutiones—cum facta pace turbae gentilium in 
christianum nomen venire cupientes hoc impedirentur, quod dies festos cum ‘idolis suis 
solerent in abundantia epularum et ebrietate consumere, nec facile ab his—voluptatibus 
.sé possent abstinere, visum fuisse majoribus nostris, ut huic infirmitatis parti interim 
parceretur, diesque festi post eos quos relinquebant alii in honorem SS. Martyrum vel non 
simili sacreligio, quamvis simili luxu celebrarentur. On the drunkenness at these meals, 
Ambrosius de Elia et Jejunio, c.17: Calices ad sepulchra Martyrum deferunt, atque illie ad 
wesperam bibunt, et aliter se exaudiri posse non credunt. Augustin Ep. 22, ad Aurelium, 
ce. 3: Comessationes et ebrietates ita concessae et licita putantur, ut in honorem etiam 





438 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D. 324-451. 


and even banished from the Church where it could be done 
without offense, while the clergy were forbidden to take part in 
them.” Thus these festivals ceased in most countries, though 
in some they still continued beyond the present period.” 


beatissimorum Martyrum non solum per dies solemnes, sed etiam quotidie celehesiitae 
Gregorius Naz. Carm. cexvii. thus addresses those who took part in such feasts : 
Nov 62 ti raépBoc Eyer ue, dxoboaTe © GiAbKopoL, 
_ Hipo¢ rove daipovcxoi¢ abrouoneite rirove. 

On the festivals of the martyrs, traders sold in the sanctuary that which was necessary 
for the feasts, Basilii M. regula major, qu. xl. : ’AAA’ obd2 Tac év Toic waprupiote yevopé- 
vac dyopaciac oixeiac puiv 6 AOyor deixyvory (he then mentions how Christ drove the 
sellers out of the temple). Paulinus Nol. nat. S. Felicis ix.: Divendant vina tabernis. 
Sancta precum domus est Ecclesia.. Thus the Manichaean Faustus, not without reason, 
reproached the Catholics (Augustin. contra Faust. xx. 4): Sacrificia eorum (gentilium) 
vertistis in agapas, idola in Martyres, quos votis similibus colitis: defunctorum umbras 
vino placatis et dapibus. 


21 In the east, the Laodicean council enacted (probably 363) can. 28: “Ort ob dei év 


Toi¢ KuplaKoic 7 év Taig éxxAnoiac Tae Aeyouévac Gydmag Toteiv, Kai év TH OiKw TOw 
Geod éobiew Kai axobBita otpwrvietv. Accordingly they were, even in Antioch, cele- 
brated beside the places dedicated to the martyrs. See Chrysostom, note 20. About 392 
they were no longer observed in the greatest part of the west out of Africa. See Augus- 
_tini Ep. xxii. ad Aurelium, c. 4: Per Italiae maximam partem, et in aliis omnibus aut 
prope omnibus transmarinis Ecclesiis partim nunquam facta sunt, partim vel orta vel 
inveterata—Episcoporum diligentia et animadversione exstincta atque deleta sunt. In 
Milan, Ambrose had forbidden them (Augustin. Confess. vi. 2, ne ulla oceasio se ingurgi- 
tandi daretur ebriosis, et quia illa quasi parentalia superstitioni gentilium essent simillima). 
In Rome, Alethius, at the funeral of his wife, entertained all the poor in the basilica S. 
Petri (Paulinus Nol. Ep. 33); Pammachius on the contrary gave rich alms on a similar 
occasion (Hieron. Ep. 26,.ad Pammach. c..2). In Nola they kept vigils on the festival of 
the birth of St. Felix, while all the night through they ate-and drank in the church of the 
saint. Paulinus, since he could not abrogate this practice, endeavored by means of pictures 


which he brought into the church to give a more serious direction to the joy (Paulini nat.- 


Felicis ix. Compare above § 99, note 47). In Africa, where those festivals were universal 
(August. de Moribus eccl. cath. i. 34)< Novi—multos esse qui luxuriosissime super mortuos 
bibant, et epulas cadaveribus exhibentes, super sepultos se ipsos sepeliant, et voracitates 
ebrietatesque suas. deputent religioni. Augustine used his influence against them. He 
first of all motioned for their abolition from Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, in the Epist. xxii. 
ad Aurelium, cf. c.6: Mihi videtur facilius illic dissuaderi posse istam foeditatem,—si— 
oblationis pro spiritibus dormientium, quas vere aliquid adjuvare credendum est, super 
ipsas memorias non sint sumtuosae, atque omnibus petentibus sine typho et cum alacritate 
praebeantur :: neque vendantar (that is, when that which was intended to serve as oblations 
is not offered for sale there), sed si quis pro religioni aliquid pecuniae offerre:voluerit, in 
praesenti pauperibus eroget. Afterward he effecte. their abrogation in Hippo; in what 
way is related by him Ep. xxix. ad Alypium, in the year 395. Finally it was enacted by 
the Conc. Carthag. iii. ann. 397, c.30: Ut nulli Episcopi vel Clerici in Ecclesia conviventur, 
nisi forte transeuntes hospitiorium necessitate illic reficiantur: populi etiam ab hujusmodi 
conviviis quantum fieri potest prohibeantuar. 

22 In Syria they are mentioned at a time so late as that of Theodoret, without blame, 
see note 19, and Theodoret’s Hist. eccles. iii. 11, where he relates how the martyrs, 
Javentinus and Maximinus in Antioch, were honored, péxypr 2 rhuepov érnoiv Snuoborvig 
yepatpovrat.—The council Quinisextum, A.D. 692, repeats can. 74 of the can. Laodic. 28 
(see note 21)—L. A. Muratori de Agapis sublatis, in his Anecd. graeca. Patav. 1709. 4. Pp. 
241. Bingham, vol. vi. p. 516, ix. 147, x. 69. Drescher de Agapis comm. Giessae, 1824. p.3& 


\ 


CHAP. VI—HISTORY OF MORALS. § 102. __ 439 


SIXTH CHAPTER. 


HISTORY OF MORALS. 


§ 102. 


HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS.1 


Staudlin’s Gesch. d. Sittenlehre Jesu, Bd. 3—De Wette Gesch. d. christl. Sittenlehre. 
Erste Hialfte, S. 334, ss. 


The disposition already manifested in the preceding period to 
lay too much stress on certain forms of external discipline, had 
now been much increased by the influence of monachism. -Fast- 
ing and almsgiving,” as well as prayer, were regarded as expia- 
tory of sins. The theater, dancing, and other amusements,’ 
were branded as absolutely sinful; oaths,‘ the taking of interest 
for money lent,’ every kind of self-defense,® capital punishments,’ 
and second marriages,’ were rejected. In the fourth century, 


1 There is an old controversy concerning the morals of the fathers occasioned by 
the unfavorable view taken of them by J. Barbeyrac in the preface to the translation of 
Puffendorf: le Droit de la Nature et des Gens. Amst. 1712.4. On the other side, Remig. 
Ceiller Apologie de la morale des péres de l’église contre J. Barb. Paris. 1718.4. J. F. 
Buddeus Isag. ad univers theolog. p. 620.. Replied to by Barbeyrac Traité de la morale 
des péres de l’église. Amst. 1728. 4. 

2 Minscher’s Dogmengesch. iv. 314, de Wette, i. 354. Ambrosius de Elia et Jejuno, 
c. 20: Pecuniam habes, redime peccatum tuum. Non venalis est Dominus, sed tu ipse 
venalis es: redime te operibus tuis, redime te pecunia tua. Vilis pecunia,\sed pretiosa 
est misericordia (according to Dan. iv. 24: Peccata tua eleemosynis redime et iniquitates 
tuas misericordiis pauperum). Salvianus (about 450) adv. Avaritiam libb. iv. expressly 
makes generosity to churches and convents the surest redemtio peccatorum. 

3De Wette, i. 349. Stiaudlin’s Gesch. d. Vorstellungen, v. d. Sittlichkeit des Schau- 

spiels. Gott. 1823. 

* Jerome, Basil, especially Chrysostom. See Staudlin’s Gesch. d. Sittenlehre Je esu, iii. 
111, 220, 244, same author's Gesch. der Vorstellungen und Lehren vom Eide. Gé6tt. 1824. 
Hence the Lex Marciani, A.D. 456 (Cod. Justin. i. 3, 25): ecclesiasticis regulis, et canone 
a beatissimis Episcopis antiquitus instituto, clerici jurare prohibentur. 

5 Basilius M. in Ps. xiv. et contra foeneratores. Gregor. Nyss. ep. can. ad Letojum 
can. 6. Ambrosius de Tobia, c. 2, ss. 

6 Ambrosius, Augustinus, Basilius, see Staudlin’s Gesch. der Sittenlehre Jesu, iii. 
65, 149, 219. 

7 Ambrosius Ep. 25 and 26 (al..51 and 52). Augustin. Ep. 153, ad Macedonium. 

® Forbidden by Ambrose and Jerome, disadvised by Chrysostom, only made second to 
e state of widowhood by Augustine, cf. Cotelerius ad Hermae Pastor. lib. ii, Mand, 4. c. 


440 _. SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A.D. 324-451. 


indeed, those who had been legally divorced were still universally 
allowed to marry again,® though this was discouraged as well 
as second marriages generally; but in the fifth century, the 
Latin church began to forbid the divorced person to marry as 
long as the other party lived." So prevalent was now the spirit 
of monachism, that the married state began to be considered as 
‘something impure," and only a tolerated evil.” Even certain 
kinds of food were forbidden.’ 

By means of such excrescences, whose foundations could not 
be shown in the moral consciousness of mankind, Christian 


4, and in Constit. apost. iii. 2. Staudlin, iii. 60,92, 141,146. Hence penances were imposed 
on those who married twice. Conc. Neocaesar. can. 1,3; Laodic. can. 1; Basilii Epist. 
188 (Ep. can. 1), can. 4. Comp. Ep. can. ii. c. 50, respecting those who married three 
times, and Ep. can. iii. c. 80, respecting those who married more than three times. 

’ Ambrosiaster in 1 Cor. vii. 15: Si infidelis discesserit, liberum habebit arbitrium, si 
voluerit, nubere legis suae viro. Contumelia enim creatoris solvit jus matrimonii circa 
eum, qui relinquitur, etc. Epiphan. Haer. 59, § 4: ‘O d2 uy duvnGeic Ta wid dpKxecBivat 
tehevtTnodon, [7] Evexév Tivog Tpogdcews, Topveiag 7) wotxeiac, 7 KAaKRC aitiag Ywptopow 
yevouévov, cvvagbévra devtépa yuvatki } yuva Sevrépw avdpi, ox aitidraz 6 Geiog Aéyoe, 
ovdé dxd Tie éxxAnoiag Kai Tie Camo axoKnpiTTEl, GAAA diaBaordlet dia 76 dcbevic, ody 
iva dbo yvvaixac éxi 7d abd cy Ett meplobone THE pLdc, GAW ard wdc arocyebeic 
devrépa, ei Tiyolev, véuw ovvagbjva., Cf. Asterius, below, § 105, note 18. Bingham, 
vol. ix. p. 301, ss. 349, ss. 

+0 The transition to this view may be traced in Augustinus de Fide et Opere, c..19: In 
ipsis divinis sententiis ita obscurum est, utrum et iste cui quidem sine dubio adulteram licet 
dimittere, adulter tamen habeatur, si alteram duxerit, ut, quantum existimo, venialiter ibi 
quisque fallatur. Still the Conc. Milevitanum, ii. ann. 416, at which also Augustine was 
present resolved, quite unanimously, can. 17: Placuit, ut secundum evangelicam et apos- 
tolicam disciplinam, neque dimissus ab uxore neque dimissa a marito, alteri conjugantur: 
sed ita maneant, aut sibimet reconcilientur. Quod si contempserint, ad poenitentiam redi- 
gantur. In qua causa legem imperialem petendam promulgari. Such too was the opinion 
of Inuocentius I. Epist. 6, ad Exsuperium, c.6: De his etiam requisivit dilectio tua, qui 
interveniente repudio alii se matrimonio copularunt. Quos in utraque parte adulteros 
esse manifestum est, etc. 

i1 As Origen. See Div. I. § 73, note 12. Hence Conc. Carthag. iv. c. 13, enacts that 
the newly-married pair, cum benedictionem acceperint, eadem nocte pro reverentia 
ipsius benedictionis in virginitate permaneant. 

12 Hieronymus adv. Jovinian. i. 4, with reference to 1 Cor. vii.1: Si bonum est mulierem 
non tangere, malum est ergo tangere: nihil enim bono contrarium est nisi malum. Si 
autem malum est, et ignoscitur; ideo conceditur, ne malo quid deterius fiat—Oro, te 
quale illud bonum est, quod orare prohibet? quod corpus: Christi accipi non permittit? 
Quandin impleo mariti officium, non impleo Christiani. Yet he was obliged in the Epist. 
30 (al. 50) ad Pammachium, pro libris adv. Jovinianum apologia to make some concession. 
Among other things he writes: Cum toties et tam crebro lectorem admonuerim,—me ita 
recipere nuptias, continentes viduas virginesque praeferrem: debuerat pradens et benignus 
lector etiam, ea, quae, videntur dura, aestimare de caeteris, ete. Augustine is more 
* moderate in the work called forth by this very controversy between Jovinian and Jerome, 
de Bono conjugali, Among other things, he writes. c. 8: Duo bona sunt connubium et 
continentia, quorum alterum est’melius. Cap. 10: Certe dubitare fas non est, nuptias non 
esse peccatum. Non itaque nuptias secundum veniam concedit Apostolus (1 Cor. vii. 6). 

18 Against the use of flesh and wine Hieronymus adv. Jovinian. lib. ii. 


CHAP. VI—HISTORY OF, MORALS. § 103. THE CLERGY. 441 


morals now assumed the aspect’ of a series of arbitrary, divine, 
despotic commands.* And since those rigorous principles were 
not at all observed by most people, they promoted the spirit of 
indifference toward the divine precepts generally, and prepared 
the way for the unfortunate distinction between a higher virtue, 
which was solely for the eee and a lower, which was sufh- , 
cient for common Christians. | 
It seems at first sight soukgadlotiey to this external strict- 
ness, yet it is in fact intimately connected with it, that most of 
the church fathers of this period maintained, in addition to that 
apparent moral severity,’ lax principles concerning veracity, 
which threatened the very foundations of genuine virtue.”’ 


§ 103. 
MORALS OF THE CLERGY. 


As ecclesiastical offices were no longer attended with dangers 
and persecutions, but with honor and power, there was a general 


14 Comp. de Wette, i. 340. 15 Miinscher’s Dogmengesch. iv. 311; de Wette, i. 346. 

16 See Div. I. § 63, note 7. 

11 Ex. gr: Hieronymus Epist. 30 (al. 50), ad Pammachium: Aliud esse youvacrikde 
scribere, aliud doyywatixd¢. In priori vagam esse disputationem, et adversario respon- 
dentem nunc haec nunc illa proponere, argumentari ut libet, aliud loqui, aliud agere, 
panem, ut dicitur, ostendere, lapidem tenere. In sequenti autem aperta frons, et ut ita 
dicam, ingenuitas necessaria est, etc. In particular they stretched the limits of allowed 
accommodation quite too far (o/xovoyia), and believed that they could attribute it in the 
same extent even to Jesus and the apostles. Comp. Suicer, s. v. ovyxaté@aore, ii. 1067. 
Miinscher’s Dogmengesch. iv.154,s. Jahn’s Nachtrage zu s. theolog. Werken. Tubingen. 
1821. S. 15, ss. 28, ss. In this way Jerome Comm..ad Gal. ii. 11, ss., thought that he 
could explain the transaction between Peter and Paul by a mere accommodation, but was 
opposed by Augustine who held stricter principles. (Comp. his writings de Mendacio and 
contra Mendacium.) Comp. the correspondence between them on this subject in Epistt. 
Hieron. Ep. 65, 67-73, 76; see Jahn, 1. e. p. 31, ff Even Chrysostom lays down very + 
questionable principles respecting the allowableness of deception and lying, in certain 
cases. In this he is followed by his disciple John Cassian, Coll. xvii. 8, ss. ex. gr. cap. 17; 
Ttaque taliter de mendacio sentiendum, atque ita eo utendum est, quasi natura ei insit 
hellebori. Quodsi imminente exitiali morbo sumtum fuerit, fit salubre: caeterum absque 
summi discriminis necessitate perceptum praesentis exitii est—Non enim Deus verborum 
tantum actuumque nostrorum discussor et judex, sed etiam propositi ac destinationis 
inspector est. Qui si aliquid causa salutis aeternae ac divinae contemplationis intuitu ab 
unoquoque vel factum viderit vel promissum, tametsi hominibus durum atque iniquum 
esse videatur; ille tamen intimam cordis inspiciens pietatem, non verborum sonum, sed 
votum dijudicat voluntatis quia finis operis et affectus considerandus est perpetrantis: quo 
potuerunt quidam, ut supra dictum est, etiam per mendacium justificari (for example, 


Rahab, Josh. ii), et alii per veritatis assertionem peccatum perpetuae mortis incurrere 
(Delilah, Judg. xvi). 


? 


449 - SECOND PERIOD—DIV. L—A.D. 324-451. 


pressing toward them:? all the arts of unworthy flattery and 
low intrigue were put in requisition to obtain them, and to rise 
froma lower to a higher station.” In this way not merely the 
unprepared, but even many absolutely immoral pushed them- 
selves into the clerical office ;* an objectionable, worldly spirit 
pervaded the whole order, which frequently perverted what was 
holy to its own purposes ;* and since that monkish morality re- 


1 Comp. above, § 91, note 15. Cf. Gregorius Naz. below, note 4. 

2 Gregor. Naz. Orat. xliii. (al. xx.) in laudem Basilii, c. 26 (ed. Colon. p.335): Nov d2 
kivduvevet TO WavToV GylOTaTov Taypa TOY Tap’ Huiv mavTGv eivar KaTayeAacTérarov- 
ob yap && dpetic uadAA0ov, 7 Kaxoupyiac 7 mpoedpia: obd? TOY Gtwrépwr, GA2A. TOV dvva- 
twrépwr of Opévor. Ullmann’s Gregor. vy. Naz.S.511, ss. Conc. Sardic. c. 1 and 2, against 
the striving of the bishops for better and richer bishoprics. Basilius Ep. 76, ad Episcopos 
suos, against simony in the choice of bishops. Can. Chalced. 2, and Can. Apost..30, against 
simony generally. 

3 Hieron. in Ep. ad Titum i. 8 (Opp. iv. p. 417): Vere nunc est cernere—in plerisque 
urbibus, Episcopos, sive Presbyteros, si laicos viderint hospitales, amatores bonorum, invi- 
dere, fremere, excommunicare, de Ecclesia expellere, quasi non liceat facere quod Episco- 
pus non faciat; et tales esse laicos damnatio Sacerdotum sit. The Can. Apost. 26, 64, 7i, 
are directed against roughnesses and common offenses in the clergy, which, in fact, must 
have occurred at this time, See Drey Apost. Constitut. S. 339, 344. 

* Comp. Hieronymus Ep. 34 (al. 2), ad Nepotianum, concerning the law of Valentimian 
‘against underhand dealing with inheritances, given above, § 91, note 14. He then con- 

tinues : Ignominia omnium Sacerdotum est, propriis studere divitiis. Natus in paupere 
domo, et in tugurio rusticano, qui vix milio et cibario pane rugientem saturare ventrem 
poteram, nunc similam et mella fastidio. Novi et genera et nomina piscium, in quo littore 
concha lecta sit calleo: saporibus avium discerno provincias; et ciborum preciosorum me 
raritas, ac novissime damna ipsa delectant. Audio praeterea in senes et anus absque 
liberis quorumdam turpe servitium. Ipsi apponunt matulam, obsident lectum, purulentiam 
stomachi et phlegmata pulmonis manu propria suscipiunt. Pavent ad introitum medici, 
trementibusque labiis, an commodius habeant, sciscitantur: et si paululum senex vegetior ” 
fuerit, periclitantur : simulataqnue laetitia, mens intrinsecus avara torquetur. He describes 
the life of rich widows, Ep..18 (al. 22), ad Eustochium: Plena adulatoribus domus, plena 

“conviviis. Clerici ipsi, quos in magisterio esse oportuerat doctrinae pariter et timoris, 
osculantur capita matronarum, et extenta manu, ut benedicere eos putes velle, si nescias, 
pretia accipiunt salutandi. In an oration of that time, which is found among the sermons 
of Ambrose (Sermo in dominicam xxii. post Pentecosten, and of Augustine (tom. v. app. 
Sermo 82), it is said on Luke iii..14: Si (clericus) non contentus stipendiis fuerit, quae de 
altario, Domino jubente, consequitur; sed exercet mercimonia, intercessiones vendit, 
viduarum munera libenter amplectitur: hic negotiator magis potest videri, quam clericus. 
Gregorii Naz. Carmen de se ipso et adv. Episcopos, y. 331, ss. (in J. Tollii Insignia itineris 
Italici. Traj. ad Rhen. 1696. 4. p. 34, ss.) : 


331. “Ayvota yap Kkaxov péiv, GAW’ jocov KaKév. 
Ti & dv tic cizot Kai KaxGv pepynpévoc ; 
Eisiv yap, eiciv dAAtérepot tivec, 

Atornv’, anevxta Tov Biov KvBeduarta, 
TH niotw dugidésiot, KaipGv vopove, 

Ob robe Geod céBovTec, etpimor A6yav 
TlaArppoovvrec, } KAadwy peTakAicetc, 
OGre¢ yuvatkov, teprva SnAnThpta, 
Mixpoic Aéovtec, Toig Kpatovat 0’ ad Kivec, 
Ildan¢ tparétng eboveic ixveduovec, 


CHAP. VI—HISTORY OF MORALS. § 103. THE CLERGY. 443 


quired of the clergy many external things to keep up the ap- 
So of spirituality, low hypocrisy pervaded the clerical 


341. Obpac KparovvTav éxtpiBovtec, od cogdr. . 
361. Aloypdy pév eimeiv, oc éyet, dpdow & Sioe.” 
Taybévrec eivat tod Kadod diddoKadot, 

Kakév ardvtwv topév épyaotipiov: 

LXtyp Bodvrec, Kav doxGuev uy Aéyerv- 

‘Tipéedpog 7 .kakia, woveitw pnde eic: 

Kakév yivecbat, todTo ovvTopétaroy, 
367. Kai Agov..... 
375. ‘Husic d? mavtac pading xabifouer, 

"Edy pévov béAwot, Aaod mpoorarac, 

Oidév oxoroivreg TOV véwy, 7) TOV TaAaL, 
378. Od mpdéiv, ob Adyov tw’ od ovvovoiav..... 
382, Ei ydp ré0’ iopev, Oc tov éFerAeypévov 

Xeipw ti€now O¢ Ta OAM &ovcia. 
384. Tig dv mpoBddaor’ ed gpovdv, dv dyvoet;...- 
393. 'O d& mpdéedpoc pacing ebpicxerat, 

Mydév rovybeic, mpdc¢atog THY akiav. 
395. 'Q tio Taxeiag TOY TpOTwY pETaoTPOdHE! 
402. X68 jo8a piper Kai Gedtpwv éy pécw, 

(Ta 0 é« Oedtpwv GAdog teralétw) 

Nov abtic juiv el Sévn Oewpia. 

Tlpénv Bidirroc, Kai Oe méurwv Kovir, 


406. ‘Qe GAAoc eiydc, } vojuat’ eboeB7..... 

41l. Nov eboradane tic, kai BAérov aidd dvr, 
412. TlAqv ei Aabav rov mpd¢ dpyaiov dpduotc..... 

415. X68 pytopeiwy Tac dixag arnuTdAetc, 

416. Xtpédwv dvw Te kal KéTw Ta TOY vouwr..... 


419. Nov poe dixaortye, kai Aaviga tic GOpdwe. 
XOé¢ pot dixdlwv civ sider yuuvovpévy 
TO Biy’ éxoier¢ Evvouov AgaThpLov, 
Kirérrov, Tupavvar, Kai mpd TévTwV Tov¢C vdmone. 
‘Q¢ juepdcg pot onmepov ! odd’ éobiira Tg 
Oita dpuciBer padinc, b¢ ob tpbrov" 
Xb év yopevtaic éatpégov Andavdpiare, 
Tauov d2 kfapv& jo8a Avdai¢c év pécate, 
’Qiddg Avpi~ov, Kai roroig yavpobuevoc. 
Nov cwdpoviornc mapbévav Kal ovlbywr. 
"Qe cov TO Kaddv brontov &k Tod mpiv Tpdérov! 
‘ Sinwv udyo¢g xe, ojuepov Wérpog Lipwrv ! 
431. ded rod rayoucg! ged, dvr’ GAdreKoc Aéwv! 


The remark is worthy of attention, v. 382, s. comp. v. 634, ss.: 
Otro: pév obtac’ Kai Tay’ dv Kai BedAtioug 
Abrév yevouevor KwAvovrat toi¢ Opdvore. 
TO yap Kparety Tov Gdpava rorei yeipova. 


Gregorii Naz. Orat. ii. (al. 1) Apologeticus de fuga sua (ed. Col. p. 4, s.): “Ooor under Ton 
ToAAGY bvreg BeAtiove, uéya pev obv ei Kai UR TOAAM xeElpove, avintote yepoly, 6 OR 
AéyeTal, Kat dyvirotc weyxaic, Toi¢ dywwraroe éavrovic émerodyovot, Kai piv Gio 
yevéodat Tpoolévat Toi¢ lepoic, Hetanotobvrat tov Bhuatoc, OAiBovrai te Kal GOodvras © 
rept THY dyiav tpdrelay, Gorep od dpeTticg TiTOY, “Aw apopuny Giov trav ras Tabryy 
eivat vouifovrec, obd& Aectoupyiay brevOuvov, GAA’ apyynv aveéractov. Isidor. Pelus. 
lib. v. Ep. 21: Meramemruxévac Aourdv 76 dkioua édogev dxd lepwoivag el¢ tuvpavvida, 
and tarevodpocivyc eic irepndaviav, and vynoteiac elg Tpvdyv, Grd oikovouiac sig 
Oearateiav. ob yap we oixovduor aktovor OLokeiv, CAV Oc deordrat adgetepilecba.. ' 


444 SECOND PERIOD—DIV. I—A.D. 324-451. 


order.’ ‘This corruption of the clergy was not a little increased 
by the interference of the emperors with ecclesiastical disputes. 
While, on the one side, the clergy were always carrying their 
spiritual pride higher,’ on the other, they frequently changed 
their opinions at the beck of the court. Synods were the 
theater on which this new pharisaism of the Christian clergy, 
along with a rough passionateness, was chiefly exhibited.’ 


5 Especially as monachism led them go place so great value on external forms. Gregor. 
Naz. Carmen de se ipso, et adv. Episc, v. 647, ss., thus describes the spiritual hypocrite: 
647. “Emetra yadndg ypvodv qudgtecuévoc, 

"H Kai yapuatAéovroc Exaraci¢g ypdac, 
Tléyor, xatngéc 700¢, abyévog KAacte, 
Gar7 Bpaysia, mtorog écxevacpévoc, 
651. Nwépov Badioua, mévTa, TARY gpEvic, codgéc. 
696. Ailoypadv piv otv alcytotov 7 Tpémov Adotc. : 
Thus it became the custom, especially in consequence of the example of the monks (see 
Bingham, vol. ii. p. 189, ss.), seemingly to decline receiving ecclesiastical honors when 
presented. Cf lex Leonis, a.D. 469 (Cod. Justin. i. 3, 31): Nemo gradum sacerdotii pretii 
venalitate mercetur:—Cesset altaribus imminere profanus ardor avaritiae, et a sacris 
adytis repellatur piaculare flagitium.—Nec pretio, sed precibus ordinetur antistes. Tantum 
ab ambitu debet esse sepositus, ut quaeratur cogendus, rogatus recedat, invitatus effugiat: 
sola illi suffragetur necessitas excusandi. Profecto enim indignus est sacerdotio, nisi 
faerit ordinatus invitus. This priestly decorum led of course, very frequently, merely to a 
mock reluctance and hesitation. Cf. Gregorius Naz. Orat. xvii. de se ipso, p. 466: Od 
yap iva (yrnbipev Grxoxpurtéueba* ob? iva wAsiovog ako ddfapmev Tipit. 

6 See above, § 91, note 24. 

7 Comp. the ironical discourse of Gregory of Nazianzum, at the second oecumenical 
council (Carmen de vita sua, Opp. ii. 27) 

....6¢ OéAet deip’ eicita, 
? Kdy dicrpodé¢ tig 7} modbotpogog TiyN* 
Tlavqyupicg éarykev, Grito pndci¢ 
*Azpaypdrevtoc. dv uetactpady KvBog 
(Kaipod yap oidéy éotiv ebotpodeérepor), 
*Eyete 76 texvidpiov, Exdpaue aaéAcv- 
Otix eipabic zictet-td mpocKeioGat m4, 
Biov dé mwoAAde eidévar dteFédove. 
Comp. Carmen de se ipso, et ady. Episc. v. 152 (ap. Tollius, p. 18), on the same council: 
...-kal yap nv aicxog péya, 
Tottav tiv’ civat Tov Karnhwy xicTewc. 
{n like manner he calls the bishops (Carmen de vita sna, p. 28) Xpuoréuropor. When 
he was invited to the synod at Constantinople, a.p. 382, he replied, Epist. 55, ad Pro- 
copium :’ "Exe pév obtwc, el det tdAnbic ypddew, Gore xdvTa obAdoyor gevyetv 
éxicxérav, 6Tt pndeutag ovvddov téhoc eidov ypyotdv, unde Atow KakGv paAAor 
éoxnxviac, } mpoo8yxnv. Ai yap dtAovetkiar Kai giAapdiat (GAN bxwc uATe doptiKdy 
troraByc obtw ypagovra) Kai Aéyou Kpeitrovec: Kai Oarrov dv tic éyxAnGein Kaxiay 
érépav Oixdlav, } Tov éxeivwv Adcete. Atd toiro el¢ éuavTdv cvvectdAny, k. Tt. A— 
Carmen x. v. 92, ss. (Opp. ii. 81): 
Oidé ti zou cvvddotat dudbpovoc Ecoop’ Eywye 
XnvGy 7 yepévav axpi7a wapvapévwv’ 
*Evf épic, Evia woOocg te, kat aicyea KpumTa zépoibev 
} Ei¢ iva dvopevéwy xOpov dyeipouera. 
Comp. Ullmann’s Gregor v. Naz. 8S. 269, s. 


CHAP. VI.—HISTORY OF MORALS. § 104. 445 


In the mean time, however, zeal for morality among the 
clergy was not rare. This zeal for morality fearlessly found 
fault with sin where it existed, opposed with spirit tyrannical 
barbarity,*® took under its powerful protection all that needed 
help,® and left behind even permanent monuments of benevolence 
and concern for the public good." 


§ 104. 
MORAL INFLUENCE OF THE CHURCH ON THE PEOPLE. 


The clergy thus sinking into degeneracy were now called to 
solve the most difficult problem that could ever, perhaps, be pre- 
sented to an order of Christian teachers. A highly cultivated 
people, but one sunk in unbelief and superstition of every kind, 
now crowded into the chureh,' impelled, for the most part, by 
interested motives; a people either for the most part fully de- 
voted to paganism in their heart,’ or apprehending Christianity 
from a heathen point of view,* and transferring into it even 


& See § 91, note 8. 9 See § 91, note 9. 

10 Revavec or Sevodoyxeta, TTWXOTPOGEIA, YnpoKomEta, voooKopeta, dpgavotpogeia. The 
institution which Basil founded in Caesarea for strangers and the sick was very large. 
After him it was called BaovAerde (Basil. Ep. 94. Gregor. Naz. Orat. 30 and 27). Basil 
also caused to be established smaller ones of the same kind, in the country (Basil. Ep. 142, 
143). Theodoret got colonnades and bridges built, and a canal made (Theod. Ep. 81). 
See Neander, ii. i. 292. 1 See above, § 75, notes 7 and 35. 

2 Chrysost. in Ep. ad Ephes. c. 3, Hom. vii. (Opp. xi. 44): Oi uév ydp dpb Brotyvtec— 
Tac Koprdde TOY dplwy KaTetAnoact, Kai éx pécov yeyévaoty (the monks).—@Odpoz J2 Kad 
uvpiov yéuovtec KakGv eicenndnoav sic Tac éxxAnoiac.—Ei tie Kata THY huépav Tod 
Ildoya xavtag Tove mpootévtac—éinrace ody axpiBeia,—roAda dv ebpéOn Bapitepa 
Tov "lovdaixéy kaxdv. Kai yap olwvifouévovc, kat dappaxeiatc Kal KAndovicpoic Kar 
éxqdaic keypnuévouc, Kai TeTopvevkérac, Kai wotyetoavTac, Kal uebicove, Kai AowWépove, 
edpev cv. : 

5 P. E. Miller Comm. hist. de genio, moribus et luxu aevi Theodosiani (P. ii. Lips. 
1797, 98. 8), P. i. p. 33, ss. Neander’s Chrysostomus, Bd. 1, 8. 236, ss. Abuse of holy 
things as charms. Cf. Hieronymus in Matth. xxiii. (ed. Martian. iv. p. 109: Haec in corde 
portanda sunt, non in corpore. Hoc apud nos superstitiosae mulierculae in parvulis Evan- 
geliis et in crucis ligno et istiusmodi rebus usque hodie factitant. Chrysostom. ad. Pop. 
Antioch. Hom. xix. (t. ii. p. 197): Ad yuvaixec cai Td uixpd matdia dvti gvAaKie peydAng 
ebayyéhia taptéor tod. tpaxyAov, Kai mavtayod wepidépovory, drov wep dv ariwow. 
See above § 99, notes 38, 41, 50; § 101, note 17. Many of the clergy made use of and 
fostered this superstition. Cf. Conc. Laodic. c. 36: “Orz od det iepatixodec, @ KAnpiKode, 
udyoue } éxaoworde eivar, 7) uabnuatixodc, } doTpoAdyove, } ToLeiv TA AeyOueva ovAaK- 
Thpta. Heineccius Abbildung der alten u. neuen griech. Kirche. Leipzig. 1711. 5. Th. 3, 
8.461. Du Resnel treatise on the pagan sortes Homericae, sortes Virgilianae, etc., and 
the Christian sortes Sanctorum in the Mémoires de l' Acad. des Inscriptions, t. xix. p. 287, ss. 


446 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A-D. 324451. 


heathen customs or Jewish practices. In addition to this, the 
new converts were demoralized by all the vices which follow in 
the train of over-refinement, and confirmed in them by the ex- 
ample of the court which had been growing more corrupt ever 
since its removal to the east, and by the example of the nobil- 
ity.’ Christian knowledge and Christian faith, in place of un- 
belief and superstition, and piety for vice, had to be infused into 
this spiritually dead mass. ‘To be successful, the Gospel needed 
to be proclaimed in its spiritual aspect with apostolic zeal; but 
the greater portion of the clergy depended for the most part on 
external means; and thereby gave Christianity the character 
of a compulsory institute, promoting the superstitious and ex- 
ternal view of it. | TA 

The Christians soon forgot the principles of religious tolera- 
tion which they had so prominently exhibited and insisted on 
in their former persecutions ;° and fanatical voices were raised 
among them calling for a violent suppression of paganism.’ It 


* See especially Chrysostomi adv. Judaeos Oratt. viii. Bingham, vol. vii. p. 274, ss. 
Neander’s Chrysostomus, Bd. 1, 8. 256, ss. 

5 Comp. the description of the court at Julian’s accession, Ammian. Marcell. xxii. 4: 
Namque fatendum est pleramque eorum (Palatinorum) partem vitioram omnium semi- 
narium effusius aluisse, ita ut rempublicam inficerent cupiditatibus pravis, plusque exemplis 
quam peccandi licentia laederent multos. Pasti enim ex his quidam templorum spoliis, 
et lucra ex omni odorantes occasione, ab egestate infima ad saltum sublati divitiarum 
ingentium, nee largiendi, nec rapiendi, nec absumendi tenuere aliquem modum, aliena 
invadere semper adsuefacti. Unde fluxioris vitae initia pullularunt, et perjuria, et nullus 
existimationis respectus, demensque superbia fidem suam probrosis quaestibus polluebat. 
Inter quae ingluvies et gurgites crevere praerupti conviviorum, etc. An orator of the day 
(Augustini, tom. v. app. Sermo 82, also in Ambrosii Opp. as Sermo in dom. xxii. post Pen- 
tecosten) complains: Usque adeo autem hoc inolevit malum, ut jam quasi ex consuetudine - 
vendantur leges, corrumpantur jura, sententia ipsa venalis sit, et nulla jam causa possit 
esse sine causa. Salvianus de Gubern. Dei is particularly full of complaints of the cor- 
ruption of his time, ex. gr. iv. 5, 7; vi. 11; vii. 12, 15. 

6 For example, Justin. Apol. i. 2, 4, 12. So still under Constantine, Lactantius Institutt. 
v. 19: Religio cogi non potest: verbis potius quam verberibus res agenda est, ut sit 
voluntas.—Nihil est tam voluntarium, quam religio. C. 20: Nos non expetimus, ut Deum 
nostrum, qui est omnium, velint, nolint, colat aliquis invitus: nec, si non coluerit, irascimur. 
Epitome ec. 54: Religio sola est, in qua libertas domicilium collocavit. . Res est enim 
praeter caeteras voluntaria, nec imponi cuiquam necessitas potest, ut colat quod non vult. 
Potest aliquis forsitan simulare, non potest velle. 

7 So even Julius Firmicus Maternus under Constantine. See § 75, note 21. Hilarii 
Pictav. contra Auxentium Mediol. liber. init. Ac primum*misereri licet nostrae aetatis 
laborem et praesentium temporum congemiscere: quibus patrocinari Deo humana credun- 
tur, et ad tuendam Christi Ecclesiam ambitione saeculari laboratur. Oro vos, Episcopi, 
qui hoc vos esse creditis, quibusnam suffragiis ad praedicandum Evangelium Apostoli usi 
sunt? Quibus adjuti potestatibus Christum praedicaverunt, gentesque fere omnes ex 
idolis ad Deum transtulerunt? Anne aliquam sibi assumebant e palatio dignitatem, 
hymnum Deo in carcere, inter catenas, et post flagella cantantes? Edicitisque Regis 


CHAP. VI—HISTORY OF MORALS. § 104. 447 


was not without the co-operation of the Christian clergy that 
the prohibitions of heathenism were always assuming a stricter 
tone, and that the laws against Judaism were more and more 
circumscribing.* The treatment of heretics, too, became more 
severe.’ At first the Catholic Christians were contented to 
render them innocuous by interdicting their meetings or by ban- 
ishment.'* The execution of Priscillian (§ 86) was still uni- 
versally regarded with abhorrence.’' At the same time, how- 
ever, Augustine allowed himself to be persuaded that corporal 
punishments. against heretics were allowable and fit ;* and Leo 


Paulus cum in theatro spectaculum ipse esset, Christo ecclesiam congregabat ?—Aut non 
manifesta se tum Dei virtus contra odia humana porrexit: cum tanto magis Christus praedi- 
caretur, quanto magis praedicari inhiberetur? At nunc, proh dolor! divinam fidem suffragia 
terrenacommendant: inopsque virtutis suae Christus, dum ambitionomini suo conciliatur, ar- 
guitur. Terret exiliis et carceribus Ecclesia, credique sibi cogit, quae exiliis et carceribus est 
credita: pendet a dignatione communicantium, quae persequentium est consecrata terrore : 
fugat sacerdotes, quae fugatis est sacerdotibus propagata: diligi sese gloriatur a mundo, quae 
Christi esse non potuit, nisi eam mundus odisset. Haec de comparatione traditae nobis olim 
Ecclesiae, nunc quam deperditae, res ipsa, quae in oculis omnium est atque ore, clamavit. 

8 C. W. de Rhoer Dissertt. de effectu relig. christianae in jurisprudentiam Romanam, 
p- 157, ss. Meysenbug de Christ. relig. vi et effectu in jus civile. Gottingae. 1828. 4. p. 42. 

8’ Bingham, vol. vii. p. 285, ss.; De Rhoer, p. 170, ss.; Meysenbug, p. 338; Riffel 
geschichtl. Darstellung des Verhaltnisses zwischen Kirche und Staat, i. 669. 

10 Tt is true that Julianus (ap. Cyrill. c. Jul. lib. vi. ed. Spanh. p. 206) accuses the 
Christians, even in his time: ’Aveogdfate oby Hudv uovov Tov Tic TaTpGote éupévovTag, 
GARG Kai tov e€ione tuiv rexAavgjuévwr aipettKGv Tove uy Tov abTov TpdToV tyuiv Tov 
vexpov Opnvodvrag. Epist. 52, that under Constantius rod¢ toAAov¢e aitGv Kai duyadev- 
Ofvat, Kai dtaxOjvat, Kai decpevOjvat> roAAa 68 70n Kai coayHvat TAROn TOV Aeyouévwv 
aipetixGv* o¢ év Lauocdrocc, kat Kvéixw, cat Tlagaayovig, cai Bibvvia, cai T'adarig, 
Kai ToAAoi¢ GALote EOveoty apdnv dvatpanjvat ropOnGeicac Kéuac. Perhaps, however, 
this should be understood of extra-judicial murders. 

11 Not only by Latinus Pacatus, in his Panegyricus Theodosio dictus, c. 29, but also by 
bishops: Sulpic. Severus Hist. sacr. ii. 50: Namque tum Martinus (bishop of Turonum) 
apud Treveros constitutus, non desinebat increpare Ithacium, ut ab accusatione desisteret: 
Maximum orare, ut sanguine infelicium abstineret: satis superque sufficere, ut Episcopali 
sententia haeretici judicati Ecclesiis pellerentur: novum esse et inauditum nefas, ut” 
causam Ecclesiae judex saeculi judicaret. How he behaved when he came again to 
Treves, after the murder of Priscillian may be seen in Sulpic. Sever. Dial. iii. c. 11-13. 
Maximus wished that the persecution of the Priscillianists should be continued in Spain; 
but pia erat solicitado Martino, ut non solum Christianos, qui sub illa erant occasione 
vexandi, sed ipsos etiam haereticos liberaret. Besides. cavit cum illa Ithacianae partis 
communione misceri. Ambrose, too, who was with Maximus as embassador from. 
Valentinian II., .p. 387, endeavored there (Ambros. Ep. 24, ad Valentin.) abstinere ab 
episcopis,—qui aliquos devios licet a fide ad necem petebant. Cf. Ep. 26. Indeed, at 
that time every kind of capital punishment was pretty generally regarded as forbidden. 

22 Augustini Ep. 93, ad Vincentium § 17: Mea primitus sententia non erat, nisi 
neminem ad unitatem Christi esse cogendum, verbo esse agendum, disputatione pugnan- 
dum, ratione vincendum, ne fictos catholicos haberemus, quos apertos haereticos novera- 
mus. Sed haec opinio mea non contradicentium verbis, sed demonstrantium superabatur 
exemplis. Nam primo mihi opponebatur civitas mea, quae cum tota esset in parte Donati, 
ad unitatem catholicam timore legum imperialium conversa est, quam nunc videmus ita 


448 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 324-451. 


_ the Great went so far as to approve the putting of them to 
death.'* . Besides, the bishops endeavored by means of ecclesi- 
astical laws, not only to prevent all contact of the faithful with 
the opponents of the church,‘ but ventured even to absolve in- 
dividuals from the. obligation of anti which they manifestly 
owed to heretics! 

At the same time, the church did not the less deviate from the 


hujus animositatis perniciem detestari, ut in ea nunquam fuisse credatur, etc. Cf. 
Retractt. ii. 5. How the Donatists attack these new principles, and how Augustine 
defends them, may be seen in ejusd. contra litt. Petiliani lib. ii, Contra Gaudentium 
lib. i. Epist. 185, ad Bonifacium, among other things, § 21, it is written: Melius est 
quidem—ad Deum colendum doctrina homines duci, quam poenae timore vel dolore 
compelli. Sed non quia isti meliores sunt, ideo illi qui tales non sunt, negligendi sunt. 
Multis enim profuit (quod experimentis probayimus et probamus) prius timore vel dolore 
cogi, ut postea possent doceri. Then he refers, § 24 the cogite intrare (Luc. xiv. 23) to 
this point: ipse Dominus ad magnam coenam suam prius adduci jubet convivas, postea 
cogi—lIn illis ergo, qui leniter primo adducti sunt, completa est prior obedientia, in istis 
autem, qui coguntur, inobedientia coércetur. Still Epist.100, ad Donatum, Procons. Africae: 
Unum solum est, quod in tua justitia, pertimescimus, ne forte—~pro immanitate facinorum, 
ac non potius pro lenitatis christianae consideratione censeas coércendum, quod te per 
Jesum Christum ne facias obsecramus.—Hx occasione terribilium judicum ac legum ne in 
aeterni judicii poenas incidant, corrigi eos cupimus, non necari; nec disciplinam circa eos 
negligi volumus, nec suppliciis, quibus digni sunt, exerceri. So, too, Epist. 139, ad Mar- 
cellinum: Poena sane illorum, quamvis de tantis sceleribus confessorum, rogo te, ut 
praeter supplicium mortis.sit, et propter conscientiam nostram, et propter catholicam 
mansuetudinem commendandam. Cf. Ph. a Limborch, Historia inquisitionis. (Amst. 
1692. fol.) lib. i.c. 6. J. Barbeyrac Traité de la morale des péres, c. 16,§ 19. Jerome, 
however, says, Epist. 37 (al. 53) ad Riparium, ady. Vigilantium: Non est crudelitas pro 
Deo pietas. Unde et in lege dicit: si frater tuus et amicus et uxor, quae est in sinu tuo, 
depravare te voluerit a veritate, sit manus tua super eos, et effunde sanguinem eorum, et 
auferes malum de medio Israel (Deut. xiii. 6, ss.). Chrysostom, indeed, recommends 
Christian love toward heretics and heathen (Hom. 29 in Matth.), but would yet have 
them restrained, and their assemblies forbidden, and declares himself only against putting 
them to death (Hom. 46 in Matth.). Thus also, he caused their churches to be taken from 
the Novatians, Quartodecimani, and other heretics in Asia, and many considered his mis- 
fortunes a righteous retribution for this. Socrates, vi. 19.—Staudlin’s Gesch. d..Sittenlehre 
Jesu iii. 238. De Wette Gesch. d. christl. Sittenlehre, i. 344. 

13 The first law of a Christian emperor, authorizing capital punishment against certain 
heretics, is that of Theodosius I. a.D. 382, against the Manichaeans. Sozomen, however, 
vii. 12, says of allsthe laws of this emperor against heretics: XaAemd¢ Toi¢ vouoe éxé- 
ypadbe Tiywpiac, GAA’ obi éxegHer’ od yap TiwpsicOa, GAM sic déoc KafioTgv Tode br7- 
Kéoug éorovdagev. (Cf. Socrates, v. 20): and Socrates, vii. 3, still maintains : Odx eiwhde¢ 
didKerv TH dp00d6E@~ éexxAnoia. On the other hand, Leo M. Hpist. 15, ad Turribium :— 
Etiam mundi principes ita hanc sacrilegam amentiam (Priscillianistarum) detestati sunt, 
ut auctorem ejus cum plerisque discipulis legum publicarum ense prosternerent.—Profuit 
diu ista districtio ecclesiasticae lenitati, quae etsi sacerdotali contenta judicio, cruentas 
refugit ultiones, severis tamen christianorum principum constitutionibus adjuvatur, dam ad 
spiritale nonnumquam recurrunt remedium, qui timent corporale supplicium. 

4 Bingham, vol. vii. p. 276, ss. 294, ss. 

18 For example, Concil. Carthag. iii. ann. 397, can. 13: Ut Episcopi vel clerici, in eos 
qui catholici Christiani non sunt, etiamsi consanguinei fuerint, nec per donationes, nec per 
testamentum rerum suarum aliquid conferant. 


CHAP. VI—HISTORY OF MORALS. 4 104. 449 


right path, in her measures instituted for the purpose of gaining 
over the masses of external professors to the side of Christianity 
internally. She endeavored to give her service the external attrac- 
tions of the heathen worship, and thus only strengthened the tend- 
ency to externalities ; thus she herself invited men to substitute 
for a genuine interest in religion and the service of God a feeling 
quite foreign to piety. On the one hand, many were confirmed in 
the heathenish, superstitious notion of looking for works accepta- 
ble to God in the external rites of his worship ; on the other hand, 
there were not a few, especially in the cities, who went to the 
churches as if to the theater, with a mere aesthetic interest; and 
followed the spiritual orators as they would rhetoricians ;** while, 
on the contrary, they did not remain to be present at the Lord’s 

Supper,’? a circumstance which necessarily led to the command 
to partake of it. Meetings for public worship began to be even 
abused, as occasions for sensual excesses.® Finally, the theologi- 
cal disputes of this period were also an important obstacle in pre- 


16 Gregor. Naz. Orat. 42 (ed. Colon. Or. 22, p. 596): Od yap (nrovow iepeic, dAAa 
.. pipropac. How the clergy themselyes promoted this tendency may be seen in Orat. 36 (ed. 
Col. Or. 27, p. 465): ‘OpG moAdodc Tay. viv leparebev dricyvovpévar, ot THY anARY Kal 
arexvov -juav ehoéBerav Evteyvov mevoiqKact, Kal. noduTiKRg TL Katvov eidog axd THE 
dyopic sic TH. Gyia wetevnveypérne, Kal axd Tov Bedtpwv éexi Tv Tog ToAAoIc KOéarov 
pwotaywyiav, Gg eivar dbo oknvic, ei Set ToAunoavta TotTo eizeiv, TocodTov aAAH- 
Awv dvagepotcag, cov tiv wiv mao dvetcbat, THY 62 Tit: Kai THY pev yeAdoOaL, THY 
Oé tiaabar’ Kai tTHv piv OeatpiKyy, THY 62 TrevpaTikyy dvoudecbat. Chrysostom. de 
Sacerdot. v. 1, of the hearers of sermons: Od mpd¢ OdéAetay, GAAG mpdc Tépiiy dKoverv 
eibicOncav of ToAAol, KabarEp TpAywdSv 7) KLBapwdGv KaOjuevor dikacTtai. Id. Hom. 30, 
in Act. Apost. Hieronym. ady. Luciferianos (Opp. iv. 296): Ex litteratis quicunque hodie 
ordinantur, id habent curae, non quomodo Scripturarum medullas ebibant: sed quomodo 
aures populi declamatorum flosculis mulceant. Id. praef. in lib. iii. comm. in epist. ad 
Ephes. Comp. Neander’s Chrysostomus, i. 118, 320, ss. 327.. Ullmann’s Gregor. v. Naz. 
§. 155, ss. Daniel’s Gesch. d. christl. Beredsamkeit, i. 331. Concerning the applause by 
clapping of hands during the sermon, see B. Ferrarii de Ritu sacrarum eccl. vet. con- 
cionum. (Mediolani. 1621, c. praef. J. G: Graevii. mang 1692. 8.) lib. ii. c. 24, Bingham, 
vol..vi. p. 187, ss. Daniel, i. 334, 605, 677. 

17 Chrysostom. Hom. iii. in epist. ad Ephes. (Opp. xi. 23): Eixg Ovoia xabnpuepiv7, eing 
_ RapeotiKkauev TH Ovotactrnpiv, obdeig 6 petéyov. Id. de incomprehensibili hom. iii. 6 
(Opp. i. 462). 

18 Conc. Antioch. (341) can. 2. Can. apost. 8:and9. See Drey, tiber die Apost. Consti- 
tutionen, S. 255. 

19 Hieronymus adv. Vigilantium (ed. Martian. tiv. B. ii. p. 285), says de vigiliis et per- 
noctationibus in basilicis Martyrum celebrandis in defense of them: Error autem et culpa ; 
javenum vilissimarumque mulierum, qui per noctem saepe deprehenditur, non est religiosis 
hominibus imputandus: quia et in vigiliis Paschae tale quid fieri CIA convincitar, 
et tamen panceram culpa non praejudicat religioni, etc. 


von. £ — 29 


450 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 324~451. 


venting Christianity from exercising its full power on the men 
of the age. While they were contending about definitions, as 
if the essence of Christianity consisted in them; the interest of 
the understanding being in a one-sided way excited in favor of 
it ;?° it was no wonder that among many Greeks the interest 
in favor of Christianity was of the same nature with an interest 
in sophistical problems ;”* the holiest relations being torn asun- 
der at the same time by hatred and discord.” And then, again, 
as the prevailing systems changed, sometimes one and sometimes 
another being enforced by wordly power, it was almost an una- 
voidable consequence that the people should either be made sus- 
picious of Christianity and indifferent to it, or else tempted to 
employ falsehood and hypocrisy in the most sacred things.”* 

It is true that monachism appeared likely to subordinate 
every thing to a striving after the highest, by means of its ex- 
ample in giving a wholesome stimulus to the enervated race ;** 
but it was itself too impure in most of its manifestations to be 
able to give pure impressions, while it brought confusion into 
moral ideas by its arbitrary mode of worship. In former times, 
this external strictness of morals had found a corresponding in- 
ternal basis in the minds of men; but now it was to be made 
prominent, in a degree much increased by monachism, among 
a people devoid of faith. Of course the people endeavored to 
make the pressure of the new law as light as possible,” to which 


20 Hilarius ad Constantium, ii.5: Dum in verbis pugna est, dum de novitatibus quaestio 
est,—dum de studiis certamen est, dum in consensu difficultas est, dum alter alteri ana- 
thema esse coepit; prope jam nemo Christi est. 

21 Gregor. Naz. Orat.xxxiii, p.530: 'Q¢ &y rt tév. dAkwy Kal TtodTo dAvapeira: Hdéwe, 
peta Tove inmixodc, kai Ta Géarpa, kai Ta Gopara, Kai THY yaoTépa, Kal Ta bd yaoTépa, 
olg Kai TovTo pépog tpvd7c,] kept Tadta épecyedia Kal Koupela THv dvTiBécewy. CF. 
Orat. xxi. p. 376, or. xxvi. Gregor. Nyss. Orat. de deitate Fil. et Spir. Sancti; Opp. iii. 
466. The law of Theodosius, A. D. 388 (Cod. Theod. xvi. iv. 2): Nulli egresso ad publicum 
vel disceptandi de religione, vel tractandi, vel consilii aliquid deferendi patescat occasio 
(cf. Gothofred. ad h.1.), of Marcian, 4. D. 452 (in Actis Conc. Chalced. ap. Mansi, vii. 476, 
and Cod. Justin. i. 1, 4). Neander’s Chrysost. ii. 118. Ullmann’s Gregor. v. Naz. S. 158, ss. 

22 Gregor. Naz. Orat. xxxii. 4, says of the theological controversies: Kai toiré éoruv, 
Oc éxi TO mAeiotov, 6 diéorace wéAn, Siéotnoey ddeAdode, TOAEtG Etapagse, Shuove 
ékéunverv, OrdAtcev &vyn [éri] Bactreic, éxavéoryncev iepxeic RaG Kal GAAHAOL, Aady 
éavt@ kal lepetot, yoveic téxvorc, Téxva yovevotv, dvdpac yuvarki, yvvaixac dvdpdou. 

23 Gregorii Naz. Carmen de se ipso et ady. Episc. v. 333, ss., above, § 103, note 4. 

24 Neander’s Chrysost. Bd. 1, S. 78, 90. 

25 Chrysostom. Orat. de baptismo Christi (Opp. ii. 366), complains that many went to 
the churches, od kal? éxdorny civakiv, GAN év gopta pdvoy drat 7 debtepov wdhic Tod 
mavtoc éviavrov. Id. Hom. in Princip. Act. i. (Opp. iii. 50). Salvianus de Gubern. Dei, 
lib. vi. p. 113: Nos Ecclesiis Dei ludicra anteponimus, nos altaria spernimus et theatra 


CHAP. VL—HISTORY OF MORALS. § 104. 451 


monachism itself contributed most readily by making a distinc- 
tion between a higher and a lower virtue.*® To introdu€e a 
Christian morality into the life of society, the church began to 
extend its penance to smaller offenses likewise,’ and at the nu- 
merous councils an extensive code of laws was formed, which 
fixed certain ecclesiastical punishments for different ecclesiastical 
and moral transgressions, according to their external form. In 
the eastern church, this penance was left to the free-will of the 
transgressors, in the case of private offenses; particularly after 
Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople, had abolished (about 391) 
the mpeoBbrepo¢ éxi tij¢ wetavoiag (see Div. I. § 71, note 11). 
But in the western church, they began to consider it a neces- 
sary condition of forgiveness for all gross sins,*® and in order 


honoramus.—Ommni enim feralium Inudicrorum die si quaelibet Ecclesiae festa fuerint, non 
solum ad Ecclesiam non veniunt qui Christianos se esse dicunt; sed si qui inscii forte 
venerint, dum in ipsa Ecclesia sunt, si ludos agi audiunt, Ecclesias derelinquunt. 

26 Comp: an unknown preacher of the day (Augustini, tom. v. app. Sermo 82, also in 
Ambrosii Opp. as Sermo in dom. xxii. post Pentecost.) on Luc. iii. 12, ss.: Nonnulli fra- 
tres, qui aut militiae cingulo detinentur, aut in actu sunt publico constituti, cum peccant 
graviter, hac solent a peccatis suis prima se voce excusare, quod militant.—Ilud autem 
quale est, quod cum ob errorem aliquem a senioribus arguuntur, et imputatur, alicui de 
illis, cur ebrius fuerit, cur res alienas pervaserit, caedem cur turbulentur admiserit; statim 
respondeat: Quid habebam facere, homo saecularis et miles? Numquid monachum sum 
professus aut clericum? . Quasi omnis, qui clericus non est aut monachus, possit ei licere, 
quod non licet. , Chrysostom frequently inveighs against the abuses of this distinction; for 
example, de Lazaro Orat. iii. (Opp. i. 737) in Ep. ad Hebr. Hom. vii. c. 4 (Opp. xii. 79). 
Neander’s Chrysost. i. 95. Augustin. in Psalm xlviii. Sermo ii. § 4: Cum coeperit Deo 
quisque vivere, mundam contemnere, injurias suas nolle ulcisci, nolle hic divitias, non hic 
quaerere felicitatem terrenam, contemnere omnia, Dominum solum cogitare, viam Christi 
non deserere; non solum a paganis dicitur insanit, sed quod magis dolendum est, quia et 
intus multi dormiunt, et evigilare nolunt, a suis, a Christianis audiunt guid pateris? in 
Psalm xc. Sermo i. § 4: Quomodo inter Paganos qui fuerit Christianus, a Paganis audit 
verba aspera,—sic inter Christianos qui voluerint esse diligentiores et meliores, ab ipsis 
Christianis audituri sunt insultationes,—dicunt: magnus tu justus, tu es Elias, tu es 
Petrus, de caelo venisti. Insultant; quocumque se verterit, audit hinc atque inde verbum 
asperum. 

27 Gramer’s Fort. v. Bossuet’s Weltgesch. Th. 5, Bd. 1, S. 379, ss. 

8 Socrates, v.19. Sozomenus, vii. 16. According to Socrates, the decree was: Ilepze- 
Aetv uév tiv éni tic ueTavolac mpecBitepov’ ovyxupHoat dé, Exactov TO idiw ovverddte 
Tév uwvoTnpiwv peréxerv. So Chrysost. in Ep. ad Hebr. Hom. 31, e. 3 (Opp. xii. 289) : My 
dpaptwrove xadGuev éavroie pévor, GAAG Kai 7a duapthuara avakoyiGoueba, Kat’ eidog 
Exacrov dvahéyortes. ob Aéyw cot “ éxrdurevoov cavTéy,” oid Tapa Totg dAhotg kari 
yopnoov, GAG reiPecBat ovpBovreba TO Tpognty AéyovTe “ dondduipov mpog Kbptov 
tiv 666v cov” (Psalm xxxvi. 5). éxi tod Geot taira duodrdynoov, éxi tod dtxactob duo- 
Aéyet TA Guaptiyara, ebyduevoc, el kai wi) TH yAwTTg, GAG TH uvzuy. Io like manner 
ad Illuminandos catech. ii. c. 4 (Opp. ii. 240), de Poenitentia Hom. vi. c. 5 (ibid. p. ee 
Non esse ad gratiam concionandum, c. 3 (ibid. p. 663), in Ep. i. ad Corinth. Hom. 28, c: 1 
ad 1 Cor, xi. 28 (Opp. x, 250), et passim. 

2 Augustinus Serm. 351 (de Poenitentia, 1) § 2, ss., distinguishes tres actiones poeni- 
tentiae. Una est, quae novum hominem parturit, donee per baptismum salutare omnium 


452 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A-D. 324—45r. 


to set aside all difficulties, to change public confession inte a 
private one in the case of private sins.*° 

Tt can not be denied, that this system of penance promoted a 
certain external propriety of conduct; and as little can it be 
disallowed that the church awakened and animated a sympathy, 
which had almost entirely disappeared from paganism,* by its care 


praeteritorum fiat ablutio peccatoram.—Altera,—cujus actio per totam istam vitam, qua in 
carne mortali degimus, perpetua supplicationis humilitate subeunda est.—Tertia, quae pro 

illis peccatis subeunda est, quae legis decalogus corftment. Respecting the latter: § 9: 

Implicatus igitur tam mortiferoram vinculis peccatorum detrectat, aut differt, aut dubitat 

confugere ad ipsas claves Ecclesiae, quibus solvatur in terra, ut sit solutus in caelo: et 

audet sibi post hanc vitam, quia tantum Christianus dicitur, salutem aliquam polliceri? 

—Judicet ergo se ipsum homo—et mores convertat in melius. Et cum ipse in se protulerit 

severissimae medicinae, sed tamen medicinae sententiam, veniat ad antistites, per quos 

illi in Ecclesia claves ministrantur: et tamquam bonus jam incipiens esse filius, materno- 

rum membrorum ordine eustodito, a praepositis sacramentorum accipiat satisfactionis suae 
modum.—Ut si peccatum ejus non solum in gravi ejus malo, sed etiam in tanto scandalo 
alioram est, atque hoc expedire utilitati Ecclesiae videtur antistiti, in notitia multoram, 

vel etiam totius plebis agere poenitentiam non recuset, non resistat, non letali et morti- 

ferae plagae per pudorem addat tumorem. However, de Symbolo ad Catechumenos, c. 

7: Illi, quos videtis agere poenitentiam, scelera commiserant, aut adulteria, aut alique 
facta immania: inde agent poenitentiam. Nam si levia peccata (above: venialia, sine 

quibus vita ista non est, and: levia, sine quibus esse non possumus) ipsorum essent, ad 
haec quotidiana oratio delenda sufficeret. Leo M. Epist.108, ed. Ball. (83, ed. Quesn.) ad ~ 
Theodorum, c.'2: Multiplex misericordia Dei ita lapsibus subvenit humanis, ut non solum 
per baptismi gratiam, sed etiam per poenitentiae medicinam spes vitae, reparetur aeternae, 
ut qui regenerationis dona violassent, proprio se judicio condemnantes, ad remissionem 
criminum pervenirent: sic divinae bonitatis praesidiis ordinatis, ut indulgentia Dei nisi 
supplicationibus Sacerdotam nequeat obtineri. Mediator enim Dei et hominum homo 
Christus Jesus hanc praepositas Ecclesiae tradidit potestatem, ut et confitentibus actionem 
poenitentiae darent - et eosdem salubri satisfactione purgatos ad communionem sacramen- 
torum per januam reconciliationis admitterent. Cui utique operi inaccessibiliter ipse 
Salvator intervenit, nec umquam ab his abest, quae ministris suis exequenda commisit, 
dicens: Ecce ego vobiscum sum, etc. (Matth. xxviii. 20), ut si quid per servitutem nos- 
tram bono ordine’ et gratulando impletur effectu, non ambigamus per Spiritem Sanctum 
fuisse donatum. Cf. Hieronymus Comm. in Matth. xvi. 19: Istum locum: Et dabo tibi 
claves regni caelorum, Episcopi et Presbyteri non intelligentes, aliquid sibi de Pharisaeo- 
rum assumunt supercilio, ut vel damnent innocentes, vel solvere se noxies arbitrentur, 
cum apud Deum non sententia sacerdotum, sed eorum vita quaeratur. 

30 Leo M. Epist. 168, ed. Ball. (ed. Quesn. 136), c. 2: Illam etiam contra apostolicam 
regulam praesumtionem, quam nuper agnovi a quibusdam illicita usurpatione committi,. 
modis omnibus constituo submoveri. De poenitentia scilicet,; quee a fidelibus postulatur, 
ne de singuloram peccatorum genere libello scripta professio publice recitetur : cum reatus 
conscientiarum sufliciat solis sacerdotibus indicari confessione secreta—Quia non omnium 
hujusmodi sunt peccata, ut ea, qui poenitentiam poscunt, non timeant publicare ; remove- 
atur tam improbabilis consuetudo: ne multi a poenitentiae remediis arceantur, dum aut 
erubescunt, aut metuunt inimicis suis sua facta reserari, quibus possint legum constitutione 
percelli. Sufficit enim illa confessio, quae primum Deo offertur, tum etiam, Sacerdoti, qui 
pro delictis poenitentium precator accedit. Tunc enim demum plures ad poenitentiam 
poterunt provocari, si populi auribus non publicetur conscientia confitentis. — . 

3! Comp. § 91, note 9; §. 103, note 10, Thomassinus, p. ii. lib. 3, c. 87, and c. 95,8 
Standlin’s Gesch. d. Sittenlehre Jesu, iii. 404. 


CHAP. VL-HISTORY OF MORALS. § 105. seme 


for the oppressed and suffering part of humanity, for the poor, 
the captives, the sick, widows and orphans. But yet by this 
new system of legislation, Christian freedom, and genuine mo- 
rality which has its root in it, were robbed of their true life. 
A comparison of the present with earlier times, in this particu- 
lar, would present none but melancholy results.*” 


. § 105. 


INFLUENCE OF THE CHURCH ON LEGISLATION. 


C. W. de Rhoer Dissertt. de Effecta religionis christianae in jurispradentiam Romanam. 
Fasc. I. Groningae. 1776. 8. H.O.Aem. de Meysenbug de Christianae religionis vi et 
effectu in jus civile, speciatim in ea, quae Institutiones in primo libro tractant. Gotting. 
1828. 4. De Influence du Christianisme « sur le droit civil des Romains, par M. Trop- 
long. Paris. 1843. 8. 


Though the great changes which had taken place in Roman 
-iegislation since Constantine had not been effected by Christi- 
anity alone,’ yet Christian principles and Christian customs, 
even respect to the Mosaic law,’ had an important influence on 
it; while several laws were directly owing to representations 
made by the bishops.* A stay was put to sensual excesses,‘ 
rape was punished with death,’ immoral p/ays were abolished or 
checked. Contests of gladiators, which had been already pro- 


32 E. g. Chrysostomus Hom. 26, in Epist. ii. ad Corinth. (Opp. x. 623): “Av 7a quétepd 
tie éSetdon Ta viv, Gera Hdixov Theo OAibewe TO Képdog. viv wev yap eipivn¢ dro- 
Aabovres avarentOxapmev, Kai dreppinuev, Kai pupiov tiv éxxAnciav éeverAnoauev 
xax@v* dre 0& HAavvéueba, Kai cwdpovéotepot, Kai emteckEorepor, Kai orovdat6repot : 
Kat rept Tobe ovAdéyouc TobTouc juev TpoGvudrepot, Kal Tept THV dxpéaory’ ébrep yap 
Heh xpvoig TO Tip, ToVTO H OAipic Taic Wuyaic, K.T.A. Hieronymus in vita Malchi, 

: Scribere disposui,—ab adventu Salvatoris usque ad nostram aetatem,—quomodo et 
a a Christi Ecclesia nata sit, et adulta, persecutionibus creverit, et martyriis coronata 
sit: et postquam ad ‘christianos principes venerit, potentia quidem et divitiis major, sed 
virtutibus minor facta sit. Verum haec alias. . Salvianus de Avaritia, i.1. Cf. Rittershu- 
sius Sacr. lectt. vi.c. 17. Venema Hist. eccl. t. iv. p. 260, ss. 3 , 

1 De Rhoer. p. 39, ss. 2 De Rhoer, p. 65, 77, s. 

3 De Rhoer, p. 89, s—On the influence of Christianity on Constantine’s laws (véuour 
éx madady émi Td dotaTepov peTaBdAAwy dreveoito) cf. Euseb. de vita Const. iv. 26. 

* Cod. Theodos. lib. xv. tit. 8, de lenonibus. Riffel’s Gesch. Darstellung des Verhalt- 
nisses zwischen Kirche und Staat, i. 108. Laws for lessening concubinage. Meysenbug, 
p-51. -  %& Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 24, de raptu virginum velviduarum. Riffel, i..110. 

5 Comp. the laws Cod. Theodos. lib. xv. t. 5, de spectaculis; tit, 6, de Majuma; tit. 7, 
de scenicis. Staudlin’s Gesch. d. Sittenlehre Jesu, Bd. 3, S$. 388. Yet it is evident from 
the law, Cod. Justin. iii. 12, 11. a.p. 469, that at that time, in addition to the scena thea- 
tralis and the «ircense theatrum, the ferarum lacrymosa spectacula also still continued : 


454 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. L—A_D. 324-451. 


hibited by Constantine, still continued, it is true, at Rome ;’ but 
they were entirely abolished by Honorius. Classes of society 
which had been heretofore almost unrecognized by the laws, were 
now embraced within their operation. The condition of slaves® 
and of prisoners® was improved ; the unlimited power of fathers 
over their children abridged ;*° women, who had been kept till now 
in a very inferior position, were invested with greater rights ;'' 
and the widow and orphan protected.’* On the other hand, leg- 
islation did not comply every where, or in every respect, with the 
peculiar requirements of the Christian morals of this age. The 
laws became more bloody and strict than before. The oath as- 


sumed Christian forms, but was more frequently administered.“ 
And though restrictions upon certain marriages were established, 
agreeably to Christian principles, the laws against celibacy 
abolished,’* and second marriages rendered difficult,” yet the 
old liberty of divorce was but peanally limited ; and from fear 
of still greater crimes, the emperors were obliged to admit many 
causes of valid separation, besides unfaithfulness to the marriage 
contract.’* 


probably only in the west, for in the east, they appear to have ceased even before Theo- 
dosius I. See Miller Comm. de genio, moribus et luxu aevi Theodosiani. Havn. 1797 
P. ii. p. 87. 

7 Cod. Theod. lib. xv. tit. 12, de gladiatoribus. The self-sacrifice of Telemachus, Theo 
doret, Hist. eccl. v.26. Comp. Neander’s Chrysost. i. 383. 

® De Rhoer, p. 117, ss. Meysenbug, p. 34. 

® Cod. Theod.-lib. ix. tit. 3, de custodiareoram. De Rhoer, p. 72. 

10 De Rhoer, p. 137, s. Meysenbug, p. 45. : 

1 De Rhoer, p. 124. 12 De Rhoer, p. 111. 13 De Rhoer, p. 59, ss. 

14 J. F. Malblane Doctrina de jurejurando e genuinis fontibus illustrata. Norimberg 
1781. ed. 2. Tubing. 1820. 8. p. 342. C.F. Staudlin’s Gesch. der Lehren vom Bide. 
Gottingen. 1824. 8. §. 81. 

15 Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. 12, de incestis nuptiis, on forbidden degrees of affinity. De 
Rhoer, p. 248. Besides, marriage between Christians and Jews was forbidden (Lc. iii. 
7, 2). A proposal of marriage made to a nun was punished with death (ix. 25, 2). 

16 Cod. Theod. viii. 16,1. See Div. I. § 56, note 35. 

17 On the poenas secundarum nuptiarum, see de Rhoer, p. 240; Meysenbug, p. 61; ¥ 
Lohr in the Archive f. d. civilistische Praxis, Bd, 16 (1833), 8. 32. 

18 Cod. Theodos. lib. iii. tit. 16, de repudiis. Theodosii IJ. Novell. tit.12. Bingham, 
vol. ix. p. 356, ss. De Rhoer, p. 287, ss. Asterii Amaseni (about 400) Homil. v. (in Com- 
befisii Auct. nov. i. 82): ’Axotdoate da viv of rotrwv Kdrndot, Kai Ta¢ yuvaixacg oe 
imaria edxédw@c petevdvduevor’ of tag macTraddag woAAdKi¢ Kai padiog myyvivTec, OF 
mavnyopewc épyactnpta.—Oi uixpov rapokvvépuevor Kai ebbig Th BiBAiov Tic dtatpécewe 
ypaoovrec. of moAdac ynpac év TE Gv Ert Karadwxdvovrec- meicbyte, brt yduoc 
Gavatw péve Kat potyeia dtaxéxrerat. Hieronymi Epist. 84 (al. 30) ad Oceanum de 
Morte Fabiolae, c. 1: Aliae sunt leges Caesarum, aliae Christi: aliud Papinianus, aliud 
Paulus noster praecipit, etc. 


CHAP. VIL—ATTEMPTS AT REFORMATION. § 106. 455 


SEVENTH CHAPTER. 


ATTEMPTS AT REFORMATION. 


§ 106. 


The new tendencies of Christian life could not slide in unno- 
ticed, especially as it is certain that the Catholic church was fre- 
quently reproached with them by the older Christian parties. 
Nor were the morally dangerous aspects of these tendencies en- 
tirely overlooked by the more acute; though they were too often 
exculpated on the ground of pious intentions.” The men who 


1 Faustus (ap. Augustin. contra Faust. xx. 4): Vos, qui desciscentes a gentibus mon- 
archiae opinionem primo vobiscum divulsistis, id est, ut omnia credatis ex Deo; sacrificia 
vero eorum vertistis in agapas, idola in Martyres, quos votis similibus colitis ; defunctorum 
umbras vino placatis.et dapibus; solemnes gentium dies cum ipsis celebratis, ut calendas, 
et solstitia;.de vita certe mutastis nihil; estis sane schisma, a matrice sua diversum nihil 
habens nisi conventum. The Novatians also rejected the worship of martyrs and relics. 
See Eulogius Patr. Alex. (about 580) contra Novatianos lib. Vto. (ap. Photius Cod. 280; 
ef. Cod. 182): perhaps also Eustathius (Conc. Gangr. c. 20, comp. however, Dallaeus adv. 
Latinorum de cultus religiosi objecto tradit. p. 151). Eunomius was an opponent of 
martyr-worship (auctor hujus haereseos. Hieron. adv. Vigilant.) and of monachism 
(Gregor. Nyssen. contra Eunom. lib. ii.). 

2 As Hieronym. adv. Vigilant. (Opp. iv. ii. p. 284): Cereos autem non clara luce 
accendimus, sicut frustra calumniaris, sed ut noctis tenebras hoc solatio temperemus.— 
Quod si aliqui per imperitiam et simplicitatem saecularium hominum, vel certe _religio- 
sarum feminarum, de quibus vere possumus dicere: confiteor, zelum Dei habent, sed + 
non secundum scientiam (Rom. x. 1) hoc pro honore Martyrum faciunt, quid inde perdis? 
Causabantur quondam et Apostoli, quod periret unguentum; sed Domini voce correpti 
sunt (Matth. xxvi. 8, ss.). Neque enim Christus indigebat unguento, nec Martyres lumine 
cereorum: et tamen illa mulier in honore Christi hoc fecit, devotioque mentis ejus recipi- 
tur; et quicumque accedunt cereos, secundum fidem suam habent mercedem, dicente 
Apostolo: unusquisque in suo sensu abundet (Rom. xiv. 5). Augustin. ad Januarium 
lib. ii. (Epist. 55) § 35: Quod autem instituitur praeter consuetudinem, ut quasi obser- 
vatio sacramenti sit, approbare non possum, etiamsi multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum 
vel sanctarum vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda, liberius improbare non 
audeo. Sed hoc nimis doleo, quod multa, quae in divinis libris saluberrime praecepta 
sunt, minus curantur; et tam multis praesumtionibus sic plena sunt omnia, ut gravius 
corripiatur, qui per octavas suas terram nudo pede tetigerit (namely neophytus, cf. Tert. 
de Cor. mil. c. 3. See Div. I. § 53, note 25), quam qui mentem vinolentia sepelierit. 
Omnia itaque talia, quae nequé sanctarum scripturarum auctoritatibus continentur, nec 
in conciliis episcoporum statuta inveniuntur, nec consuetudine universae ecclesiae roborata 
sunt, sed pro diversorum locorum diversis moribus innumerabiliter variantur, ita ut vix 
aut omnino nunquam inveniri possint causae, quas in eis instituendis homines secuti 
sunt, ubi facultas tribuitur, sine ulla dubitatione resecanda existimo.. Quamvis enim 
neque hoc inveniri possit, quomodo contra fidem sint: ipsam tamen religionem, quam 


456 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 324-451. 


looked into the. ecclesiastical and religious errors of the time 
more profoundly, and attacked them publicly, were declared her- 
etics by the offended hierarchy ; and their voice soon died away 
without being able to give another direction to the incipient de- 
velopment of ecclesiastical life. To these latter belonged Aerius, 
presbyter in Sebaste, and friend of bishop Eustathius (about 
360) ;° Jovinian, monk at Rome (about 388), first condemned 
there by Siricius, afterward by Ambrose at Milan ;* some of 


paucissimis et manifestissimis celebrationum sacramentis misericordia Dei esse liberam 
voluit, servilibus oneribus premunt, ut tolerabilior sit conditio Judaeorum, qui, etiamsi 
tempus libertatis non agnoverunt, legalibus tamen sarcinis, non humanis praesumtionibus 
subjiciuntur. Sed ecclesia Dei inter multam paleam multaque zizania constituta, multa 
tolerat, et tamen quae sunt contra fidem vel bonam vitam non approbat, nec tacet nec 
facit. Id. contra Faustum, xx. 21: Aliud est quod docemus, alinud quod sustinemus, 
aliud quod praecipere jubemur, aliud quod emendare praecipimur, et donec emendemus, 
tolerare compellimur. Alia est disciplina Christianorum, alia luxuria vinolentorum, vel 
© error infirmorum. 

3 Only authority Epiphan. Haer. 75. His doctrines, ib. § 3: 1. Ti éoriw éaioxomoc 
mpo¢ mpecBvrepov; obdév OtadAdrrec odTo¢ TobTov’ pia yap éote Tast¢, Kai pia TYuA 
kai év &&téua (proofs from New Testament passages, § 5). 2.-Ti éore 7d xéoyxa, brep 
map’ tiv éxireAsitat ;—ob ypy TO wdoxa énitedciv: TH yap Tdécxya budv étb60n Xpiotéc 
(1 Cor. v. 7).—3. Tivt 76 Ady@ weTa Cavarov dvoudlete bvéuata tebvedrwr ;—ei de 

Shag ebyy tév evradOa Tove éxeice Gvacev, dpa yowv undei¢ eboeBeitw, unde tyabo- 
roita, GAA KtnodoOw didove Tivd¢,—Kai ebyécbwoav epi aditod, iva pH TL éxet 
né0y.—4. Oire vnoreia Eotar tevaypévy* tadta yap "lovdaixd tort, Kai bxd Gvydv 
dovieiac.—ei yap 6Aw¢ BodiAopat vyotetvery, olav 0 dv aipnoopar tuépay an’ éuavtod 
vnotetw 1a Tv éAevOepiav. The Protestants were frequently accused of the heresy 
of Aérius. Walch’s Ketzerhist. iii. 321. 

* Siricii Epist. ad diversos episcopos adv. Jovinianum (about 389) ap. Coustant. Epist. 7 
Ambrosii Rescriptum ad firicium (Epist. :2, ap. Coustant. Ep. Siric. 8). Hieronymi libb. 
ii. adv. Jovinianum A.D. 392, Augustinus de Haeres. c. 82, and in other writings. Doubtless 
Jovinian was greatly strengthened by the prevailing prejudice at Rome against mona- 

* chism, and by the death of Blaesilla (384). See § 96, note3. He was thus excited to 
reflection, and was brought to deny the advantages which the monastic state claimed in 
its favor. Hence also he met with so much acceptance in Rome. See his doctrines in 
Jerome, i. 2: Dicit, virgines, viduas et maritatas, quae semel in Christo lotae sunt, si 
non discrepent caeteris operibus, ejusdem esse meriti (August. 1. c. virginitatem etiam 
sanctimonialium, et continentiam sexus virilis in sanctis eligentibus caelibem vitam con- 
jagiorum castorum atque fidelium meritis adaequabat: ita ut quaedam virgines sacrae 
provectae jam aetatis in urbe Roma, ubi haec docebat, eo audito nupsisse dicantur). 
Nititar approbare, eos, qui plena fide in baptismate renati sunt, a diabolo non posse 
subverti (farther below :—non posse tentari: quicunque autem tentati fuerint, ostendi, 
eos aqua tantum et non spiritu baptizatos, quod in Simone mago legimus: more accu- 
rately Jerome ady. Pelag. ii.: Posse hominem baptizatum, si voluerit, nequaquam ultra 
peceare: i. e., divine grace is communicated fully to man in baptism, and is not increased 
by the monastic state). Tertium proponit, inter abstinentiam ciborum et cum gratiarum 
actione perceptionem eorum nullam esse distantiam. Quartum, quod et extremum, esse 
omnium, qui suum baptisma servaverint, unam in regno caelorum remunerationem. 
Augustine adds, I. c.: Omnia peccata, sicut stoici philosophi, paria esse dicebat. (Jovinian 
said: Hieron. adv. Jov. ii. 20: Qui fratri dixerit fatue et raca, reus erit Geenae: et qui 
homicida fuerit et adulter, mittetur similiter in Geennam), and virginitatem Mariae 
destruebat, dicens eam pariendo fuisse corruptam.—Comp. Augustin. Retract. ii. 22: 


. 


. 


CHAP. VIL—ATTEMPTS AT REFORMATION. § 106. 457 


whose opinions were soon after adopted by two monks of Milan, 
Sarmatio and Barbatianus (about 396) ;° but especially Vigzi- 
antius (shortly before 404) of Calagurris in Gaul (now Caseres 
in the district Commenges in Gascogne), presbyter in Barce- 
lona.® 


Remanserant autem istae disputationes ejus (Joviniani) in quorundum sermunculis ac 
susurris, quas palam suadere nullus audebat :—jactabatur, Joviniano responderi non 
potuisse cum laude, sed cum vituperatione nuptiarum (cf. § 102, note 12). Propter hoc 
librum edidi, cujus inscriptio est de bono conjugali. Walch, iii. 655. Neander’s K. G. 
li. ii. 574. Gu. B. Lindner de Joviniano et Vigilantio diss. Lips. 1839. 8. p. 10. 

5 Ambrosii Epist. 63 (al. 82, al. 25) ad Vercellensem ecclesiam: Audio venisse ad vos 
Sarmationem et Barbatianum, vaniloquos homines, qui dicunt nullum esse abstinentiae 
meritum, nullum frugalitatis, nullam virginitatis gratiam, pari omnes aestimari pretio, 
delirare eos, qui jejuniis castigent carnem suam, et menti subditam faciant etc. 

§ Concerning his earlier abode in Palestine (396), and his disputes with Jerome, whom 
he considered to be a follower of Origen, Hieron. Ep. ad Vigilantium (ap. Martian, Ep. 36, 
ap. Vallarsi Ep. 61).—A gainst the later assertions of Vigilantius Hieron. Ep. ad Riparium, 
A.D. 404 (ap. Martian. Ep. 37, ap. Vallarsi Ep. 109), adv. Vigilantium lib. a.p. 406.—In the 
latter it is said: Martyrum negat sepulchra veneranda (in Ep. ad Riparium: Ais, Vigilan. 
tium, qui cat’ dytidpacty hoc vocatur nomine, nam Dormitantius rectius diceretur, os 
foetidum rursus aperire, et putorem spurcissimum contra sanctorum martyrum proferre 
reliquias: et nos, qui eas suspicimus, appellare cinerarios et idololatras, qui mortuoram 
hominum ossa veneremur), damnandas dicit esse vigilias nunquam nisi in pascha alleluja 
cantandum (cf. Bingham, vol. vi. p. 41, ss.), continentiam haeresin, pudicitiam libidinis 
seminarium.—Proh nefas, episcopos sui sceleris dicitur habere consortes, si tamen episcopi 
nominandi sunt, qui non ordinant diaconos, nisi prius uxores duxerint, nulli caelibi cre- 
dentes pudicitiam. Extracts from the writings of Vigilantius: Quid necesse est, te tanto 
honore non solum honorare, sed etiam adorare illud nescio quid, quod in modico vasculo 
transferendo colis 7—Quid pulverem linteamine circumdatum adorando oscularis ?—Prope 
ritam gentilium videmus sub praetextu religionis introductum in ecclesiis, sole adhuc ful- 
gente moles cerecrum accendi, et ubicunque pulvisculum nescio quod in modico vasculo 
pretioso linteamine circumdatum osculantes adorant. Magnum honorem praebent hujus- 
modi homines beatissimis martyribus, quos putant de vilissimis cereolis illustrandos, quos 
agnus, qui est in medio throni cum omni fulgore majestatis suae illustrat—vVel in sinn 
Abrahae, vel in loco refrigerii, vel subter aram Dei animae Apostoloram et Martyrum 
consederunt, nec possunt suis tumulis, et ubi voluerint, adesse praesentes.—Dum vivimus, 
mutuo pro nobis orare possumus: postquam autem mortui fuerimus, nullius est pro alio 
exaudienda oratio. Jerome adds still farther: Praeterea iisdem ad me relatum est epis- 


-tolis, quod contra auctoritatem Pauli—tu prohibeas, Hierosolymam in usus sanctorum 


aliqua* sumtuum solatia dirigi;—hoc unumquemque posse in patria sua facere; nec 
pauperes defuturos, qui ecclesiae opibus sustentandi sint.—Asseris, eos melius facere, 
qui utuntar rebus suis, et paulatim fructus possessionum suarum pauperibus dividunt, 
quam illos, qui possessionibus venumdatis—semel omnia largiuntur.—Dicis: si omnes se 
clauserint et fuerint in solitudine: quis celebrabit ecclesias? quis saeculares homines 
lucrifaciet ? quis peccantes ad virtutes poterit cohortari? Comp. the writings quoted in 
§ 102, note 1. Barbeyrac pref. p. 48. Ceillier, p. 339, ss. Barbeyrac Traité, p. 251, ss. 
—Bayle Diction. s. v. Vigilantius. Walch de Vigilantio haeretico orthodoxo. Goett, 
1756 (in Pottii Syll. comm. theol. vii. 326). Walch, iii. 673. Lindner de Joviniano et 
Vigilantio, p. 40. 


458 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. 1L—A.D. 324-451. 


EIGHTH CHAPTER. 


SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY. 


§ 107. 
IN THE BAST. 


In Persia, where there were numerous churches under the 
metropolitan bishop of Selewcia and Ctestphon, Christianity had 
become an object of suspicion ever since it had prevailed in the 
Roman empire. The recommendation of Constantine, therefore, 
in favor of the Persian Christians, had no permanent or good 
influence with the king (Sapor JJ. 309-381).1_ When a war 
broke out soon after between the Romans and Persians, Sapor 
began a tedious and horrible persecution of the Christians with 
the execution of Simon, bishop of’ Seleucia and Ctesiphon (343), 
under the pretense of his being a spy of the Romans.” After 
Sapor’s death, indeed, this persecution ceased, Jezdegerd I. (400- 
421) being at first even a friend to the Christians; but the fa- 
natic Abdas, bishop of Susa, by the destruction of a fire-temple 
(414) brought on another persecution as severe, which was final- 
ly extinguished by Theodosius Il. making war on the Persians 
(422). The Persian church was always in close connection with 
the Syrian, and exhibited the same theological tendency. When, 
therefore, Nestorianism in its native land was forced to give way 
to violence, it found a secure asylum among Persian Christians ; 
from which time the Persian church separated itself from that of 
the Roman empire.* 

Christianity had also been introduced into Armenia as early 
as the second century.’ In the time of Diocletian, it was spread 


1 Constantini Epist. ad regem Persarum ap. Euseb. de vit. Const. iv. 9-13, et ap. 
Theodoret. i. 24. : 

2 Sozomen. ii. 9-41. Steph. Evod. Assemani Acta sanctoram Martyrum orientalium et 
occidentalium. Romae. 1784. fol. Neander’s K. G. ii. i. 222. 

3 Theodoretus, v. 38. Socrates, vii. 18-21. -Neander, 8. 235, ss. 

* § 88, at the end. 

5 Dionysius Corinthius according to Eusebius, vi. 46, wrote toi¢ xara ’Apueviay epi 
ueTavoiac, ov éreckéreve Mepovlavys: 


CHAP. VIIE+SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY. §107. THE EAST. 459 


more widely by Gregory the Illuminator,’ who gained over king 
Tiridates himself to its side, and was consecrated first metro- 
politan of Armenia in 302 by Leontius, bishop of Caesarea.’ 
The long contests that followed, with the adherents of the old 
religion, had an important political character, so far as the one 
party was supported by the Persian, the other by the Roman 
emperors.’ But when, after the greatest part of Armenia had 
come under the Persian dominion (428), the Persian kings 
wished to procure by violence a victory for the Zend-doctrine 
over Christianity, they found such determined opposition, that 
they were at last obliged to allow the Christians the free exer- 
cise of their religion, after a lengthened war (442—485).° In 
the fifth century, Mesrop gave the Armenians their alphabet and 
a version of the Bible.‘°—Christianity was carried into Iberia 
under Constantine the Great.'! 

At the same time it was introduced into Ethiopia by Fru- 
mentius ; first at eourt, and, very soon after, throughout the 
country.'? In southern Arabia among the Homerites, Con- 
stantius endeavored to establish Christianity by means of The- 
ophilus (about 350).'* He seems, however, not to have pro- 
duced any considerable effect. 


§ Armenian, Lusaworitsch, illuminator. Respecting him see C. F. Neumann’s Gesch. 
der armen. Literatur. Leipzig. 1836. S. 13. 

7 Sozomenus, ii. 8. Mosis Chorenensis (about 440) Historiae Armeniacae libb. iii. ed. 
Guilelmus et Georgius Guil. Whistoni filii. Londini. 1736. 4. p. 256, ss. Bekehrung Arme- 
niens durch d. heil. Gregor Illuminator, nach nationalhistor. Quellen bearbeitet von P. 
Mal. Samueljan. Wien: 1844. 8. 

8 Mémoires historiques et géographiques sur l’Armenie par M. J. Saint-Martin (t. ii. 
Paris. 1818, 19. 8), t. i. p. 306, ss. 

9 A history of these persecutions, from 439-451, and of the general of the Armenians, 
Wartan, written by a contemporary, Elisa, bishop of the Amadunians, is: The History ot 
Vartan, by Elisaeus, bishop of the Amadunians, translated from the Armenian by C. F. 
Neumann. Lond. 1830. 4. Comp. St. Martin, i. 321.. The proclamation in commendation 
of the Zend-religion, issued before the beginning of the persecution by the Persian general 
Mihr-Nerseh, is especially deserving of notice, ap. Saint-Martin, ii. 472, more correctly in 
the history of Vartan, p. 11. 

10 Goriun’s (a disciple of Mesrop) Lebensbeschr. des. heil. Mesrop, aus d. Arm. tibersetzt 
u. erlautert von Dr. B. Welte (Programm.) Tubingen. 1841. 4. Neumann’s Gesch. d. 
arm. Literatur, §. 30. . Concerning the many Armenian versions of Greek writers in the 
succeeding period see Saint-Martin, i. 7. Neumann, S. 71. 

11 Rufini Hist. eccl. x. 10. Socrates, i. 20. Sozomenus, ii. 7. Theodaretus, i. 23 
Moses Chorenensis, ii. c. 83. 

12 Rufinus,x. 9. Socrates, i.19. Sozomenus, ii. 24. Theodoretus, i. 22. Hiobi Ludolfi 
Historiae Aethiopicae libb. iv. Francof. 1681. fol. lib. iii. c. 2. Ejusdem Commentarius 
ad hist. Aethiopicam. Ibid. 1691. fol. p. 283, ss. 

13 Philostorgius, ii. 6; iii. 4. Since it was an Arian Christianity, orthodox historians are 
silent on the subject. 


460 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 324-451, 


§ 108. 
» IN THE WEST. 


In the preceding period Christianity had been known among 
the Goths (Div. I. § 57), and there was even a Gothic bishop 
at the council of Nice.’ After Arianism had been fathered upon 
them by their ecclesiastical connection with Constantinople,? 
Ulphilas,who was consecrated bishop in 348 at Constantinople, 
became their apostle.* When the Christian Goths were oppress- 
ed by a persecution, he led a great multitude of them into the 
habitation about Nicopolis in Moesia, which Constantius had 
assigned them (355), where, after inventing the Gothic alpha- 
bet, he translated the Bible into Gothic.t Afterward, Frithi- 
gern broke off from Athanarich, the leader of the Visigoths, 
who persecuted the Christians, with a part of the people, was 
supported by Valens, and spread Christianity among his sub- 
jects. And when the Huns pressed upon the Goths, this por- 
tion of the Visigoths received a place of residence from Valens, 
in Thrace, on condition of their becoming Christians (375) ; 
and Ulphilas was especially active in theirconversion. Soon after, 
Arianism was overthrown by Theodosius. Ulphilasdied in Con- 
stantinople (888), where he endeavored in vain to revive it. 
Efforts were now made at Constantinople to procure acceptance 
for the Nicene confession among the Goths, but without much 
success. | 


1 Among the signatures preserved in Latin: Theophilus Gothorum Metropolis (sc. 
Episc). Socrates also mentions the signature of OedguA0¢ tév Térbuv éxioxoroc. 

2 According to Theodoret. H. E. iv. 33, Ulfila led away the Goths to Arianism, while he 
told them é« gAoTimiacg yeyerqobar Thy piv, doypatwr dé undepiav eivar Oiadopadv.. It 
is true, indeed, that the Goths had such a view of the controversy. 

3 Respecting him, Socrates, iv. 33; Sozomenus, vi. 37; Theodoretus, iv. 33; Philo- 
storgius, ii, 5; Jordanis (about 550 in the Eastern Roman Empire, incorrectly called 
Jornandes, and reckoned a bishop of Ravenna) de Rebus Geticis (in Muratorii Rerum 
Italicarum scriptores, i. p. 187), c. 25. More exact information respecting him was first 
furnished by the letter of Auxentius, bishop of Dorostorus, his disciple, which, transferred 
to a work of the Arian bishop Maximin, has been again found along with it in a cod. Paris, 
and printed and explained in: G. Waitz tber das Leben u. die Lehre des Ulfila. Hann- 
over. 1840. 4. 

4 The most complete edition: Ulfilas. Veteris et Novi Test. versionis gothicae frag- 
menta quae supersunt, edd. H. ©. de Gabelentz et Dr. J. Loebe. Altenburgi et Lips. vol. 
i. and vol. ii. P. i. 1836, 1843. 4. Comp. Hug’s Einleit. in d. N. T. i. 492, 


CHAP. VIIL—SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY. §108.THE WEST. 461 


Arian Christianity was diffused by the Visigoths with sur- 
prising rapidity among the other wandering German tribes, 
while it was suppressed in the Roman empire.* The fact of 
the Arian doctrine being more easily apprehended, and hatred 
to the Romans, procured the confidence of the Germans in 
Arianism ; and it soon obtained the reputation of being as gen- 
erally the Christianity of the Germans as Homousianism was 
of the Romans, | 

The Ostrogoths and Vandals first received Arian Christian- 
ity from their countrymen. The Burgundians had passed in- 
deed into the Catholic Church after their wandering into Gaul 
(413); but they afterward (about 450) adopted Arianism, 
along with their kings, belonging to the Visigothic race. In 
like manner, Catholic Christianity had been at first received by 
the Swevi in Spain; but Arianism was subsequently dissemi- 
nated among them by the Visigoths (469). The older Catholic 
inhabitants of the countries in which these German tribes had 
settled suffered oppression only from the Visigoths and Vandals.’ 
They were especially persecuted by the latter in a most horrible 
manner after Africa (431-439) had been conquered by them un- 
der their first two kings, Genseric ({ 477) and Hunerich (¢ 484).* 
The Christianity of the Germans was still mixed, to a consider- 
able degree, with heathenism: what rude notions they enter- 
tained of the former may be seen in the practice of buying off 
crimes with money, which they soon transferred to Christian re- 
pentance.® 


5 Walch’s Ketzerhistorie, Th. 2. 8. 553, ss. Cf Prosper in Chron. Imperiali ad ann. 404. 
(Chronica medii aevi ed. Roesler. Tiibing. 1798. 8. t.i. p. 199) : Radagaius Rex Gothorum 
Italiae limitem vastaturus transgreditur. Ex quo Ariani, qui Romano procul fuerant orbe 
fugati, barbararum nationum, ad quas se contulere, praesidio erigi coepere. 

6 Jordanis, c. 25: Sic quoque Vesegothae a Valente Imp. Ariani potius quam Christiani 
effecti. De caetero tam Ostrogothis quam Gepidis parentibus suis per affectionis gratiam 
evangelizantes hajus perfidiae culturam edocentes, omnem ubique linguae hujus nationem 
ad culturam hujus sectae invitavere. 

7 Sidonius Apollinaris (Episc. Arvernorum 472) lib. vii. Ep. 6. ‘ 

8 Victor Episc. Vitensis wrote, 487, Hist. persecutionis Africanae sub Genserico et 
-Hunnerico Vandalorum regibus, reprinted in Th. Ruinarti Historia persecutions Van- 
dalicae. Paris. 1694. 8. (Venet. 1732. 4.) Neander’s Denkwirdigkeiten, iii. 1, S. 3,  ° 
F. Papencordt’s Gesch. d. vandal. Herrschaft in Afrika. Berlin. 1837. S. 66, 113, 269. 

® Cf Homilia de haereticis peccata vendentibus, in Mabillon Museum Italicium, . i. P. 
ii. p. 27 (according to Mabillon’s conjecture, p. 6, belonging to Maximus Taurinensis, about 
440): Nec mirari debemus, quod hujusmodi haeretici in nostra aberrare coeperint regione. 
—Nam ut eorum interim blasphemias seponamus, retexamus, quae sint ipsorum praecepta 
vivendi. Praepositi eorum, quos Presbyteros vocant, dicuntur tale habere mandatum, ut 
si quis laicorum fassus fuerit crimen admissum, non dicat illi: age poenitentiam, deplora 


AG62 SECOND PERIOD—DIV- L—A.D. 224-451. 


Christianity in Britain (Div. I. § 57) was in the mean time 
very much retarded by the Anglo-Saxons, who had established 
themselves there from a.p. 449. The Britons still held out in 
Wales, in the mountains of Northumberland and Cornwall, 
where alone Christianity was preserved. Shortly before this, 
Christianity had been established in Ireland by St Patrick’ 
(about 430) and spread with rapidity over the island.'’ The 
seat of the bishop soon arose at Armagh. 


facta tua, defle peccata; sed dicat: pro hoc crimine da tantum mihi, et indulgetur tibi.— 
Suscipit ergo dena Presbyter, et pactione quadam indulgentiam de salvatore promittit. 
Insipiens placitum, in quo dicitur, minus deliquisse Domino, qui plus contulerit Sacerdoti. 
Apud hujusmodi praeceptores semper divites innocentes, semper pauperes criminosi. _ 

10 According to Ussher, belonging to Kilpatrick in Dumbarton in Scotland; according to 
Jobn Lanigan Ecclesiastical History of Ireland (2 ed. Dublin. 1829. 4 voll.), i. 93, belonging 
to Bonavem Taverniae, i. e., Boulogne in Picardy. 

11 Respecting him see particularly his Confessio (in Patricii Opusculis ed. Jac. Waraeus. 
Lond. 1658.8; and Acta SS. Mart. ii. 517, after an older text in Betham, P. ii. App. p. xlix.). 
In this work nothing is found about his journey to Rome, nor of a Papal authorization of a 
mission to Ireland, of which we find a relation first of all in Hericus Vita S. Germani, i. 12. 
{Act. SS. Jul. vii.) about 860. Jocelin, in the 12th century, has introduced still more fables 
in his vita Patricii (Acta SS. Mart. ii. 540). Jac. Usserii Britanicarum ecclesiaruam 
antiquitates, Dublin. 1629. 4. auctius Lond. 1687. fol. Neander’s Denkwirdigkeiten, iii. 
41.19. Irish Antiquarian Researches by Sir Will. Betham, P. ii, Dublin. 1826 and 97. &. 


SOURCES. 463 


SECOND DIVISION. 


FROM THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON TO THE BEGINNING OF THE 
MONOTHELITIC CONTROVERSIES, AND THE TIME OF MUHAMMED. 
A.D. 451-622. 


SOURCES. 


I. Ecclesiastical historians: The works of the two Monophy- 
sites are lost, viz., the presbyter John Aegeates, Hist. eccles. 
lib. x., of which the first five books comprised the period be- 
tween 428 and 479 (see Photius Cod. 41, cf. 55); and of 
Zacharias Rhetor, bishop of Meletina in Lesser Armenia, an 
excerpt from Socrates and Theodoret, and a continuation to 
547 (Greek fragments in Evagrius: 19 Syrian fragments, 
of which Assemanus Bibl. orient. ii. 53, gave an account, 
communicated in A. Maji Scriptt. vett. nova coll. x. 361) ; 
as also of the Nestorian Basil of Cilicia (presbyter in Antioch, 
Photius Cod. 107), Eccles. hist. libb. iii. from 450 to 518 
(Photius Cod. 42). 

Still extant are: Theodorus Lector, in fragments, Evagrius 
Scholastieus, Nicephorus Callistus (comp. the preface of divi- 
sion 1). 

Gennadius, presbyter in Marseilles, + after 495, and Isidore, 
bishop of Hispalis, + 636, de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, both 
in Fabricii Bibliotheca eccles. Hamb. 1718. fol. 

II. Profane historians: Procopius Caesariensis (f after 522, 
de bello Persico libb. ii., de bello Vandalico libb. ii., de bello 
Gothico libb, iv., historia arcana Justiniani, de aedificiis Jus- 
tiniani Imp. libb. vi. Opp. ex rec. Gu. Dindorfii, voll. iii, 
Bonnae. 1833-38. 8)—Agathias Myrinaeus (Historiarum 
libb. v., written about 580, ed. B. G. Niebuhr. Bonnae. 
1828. 8). 

Chronicon paschale (comp. the preface of division 1). 

Theophanes Confessor (f 817, Chronographia from 285 to 813, 
ex rec. Jo. Classeni, voll. ii. Bonnae. 1839, 41. 8. 

III. Latin chroniclers (comp. preface to division 1): Marcellinus 
Comes, till 534, continued by another till 566 (in Sirmondi 


464 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 451-622. 


Opp. ii. Bibl. PP. Lugd. ix. 517). Victor, bishop of Tun- 
nuna, from 444 till 566 (ap. Canisius-Basnage, i. 321, best 
printed in Henr. Florez Espanna Sagrada, vi. 382). Isidore, 
bishop of Seville, from the creation we the world till 614 
(in Esp. Sagr. vi. 445). 

IV. Imperial decrees: Codex Justinianeus, see preface to divi- 
sion 1.—Novellae (veapai drardierg peta tov Ka@diKa). 


FIRST CHAPTER. 


ENTIRE SUPPRESSION OF PAGANISM IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE. 
§ 109. 


In the east, the remains of paganism disappeared under Jus- 
tinian I. (527-565), who abolished the New Platonic school at 
Athens (529), and compelled the heathen to submit to bap- 
tism.” Only the free Maenotts in the Peloponnesus clung obsti- 
nately to it. Even in the west it was not yet completely ex- 
tirpated. Theodoric was obliged to prohibit sacrifices to the 
gods on pain of death;* and at the end of the fifth century 
many heathen practices were still continued at Rome, and could 
not be abolished without resistance.° Still longer did various 


1 Joh. Malala (about 600) Historia chronica (libb. xviii. from the creation of the world to 
the death of Justinian I.) ex. rec. Lud. Dindorfii. Bonnae. 1831. 8. p. 451, Exile of the 
philosophers Damascius, Isidorus, Simplicius, Eulamius, Hermias, Diogenes, and Priscian, 
into Persia, Agathias, ii. 30. Cf. Wesselingii Observationum variaram (Traj. ad Rhen. 
1740. 8), lib. i. c. 28. 

2 Cod. Justin. lib. i. tit. xi. (de paganis et sacrificiis et templis) 1. 10. Theophanes, i. 
276, activity of Johannes Episc. Asiae (probably a missionary bishop for the conversion 
of the heathen in Asia Minor) see Assemani Bibl. Orient. ii. 85. As late as the year 561 
heathens were discovered in Constantinople (Joh. Malala, p. 491). 

3 Till the ninth century. See Div. I. § 44.—According to J. Ph. Fallmerayer Gesch. d. 
Halbinsel Morea wahrend des Mittelalters (2 Th. Stuttg. u. Tibingen. 1830. 36), i. 169, 189, 
heathen Slavonians had seized upon, from 578 till 589, the interior of Macedonia, Thessaly, 
Hellas, and the Peloponnesus; but this first happened about 746, though single Slavonian 
colonies in those parts may have been older. See J. W. Zinkeisen’s Gesch. Griechen- 
lands v. Anfange geschichtl. Kunde bis auf unsere Tage. Th. 1 (Leipzig. 1832), S. 689, 741. 

* See Lindenbrogii Cod. legum antt. p. 255. 

5 Cf. Salvianus Massil. above § 79, note 23. Gelasius P. (492-496) adv. Andromachum 
Senatorem caeterosque Romanos, qui Lupercalia secundum morem pristinum colenda 
constituebant (ap. Mansi, Viii. p. 95, ss.). He shows of what a sacrilege he is guilty, qui 
cum se Christianum videri velit, et profiteatur, et dicat, palam tamen publiceque prae 


CHAP. IL—SUPPRESSION OF PAGANISM. § 109. 465 


superstitions adhere to those heathen temples which were not 
destroyed.’ In many distant places paganism was maintained 
for a long time undisturbed. Sacrifices were offered in a tem- 
ple of Apollo on Mount Cassinum, until Benedict (529) trans- 
formed it into a chapel of St. Martin.’ In Sicily,® but espe- 
cially in Sardinia® and Corsica,’® there were still many hea- 
then about a.p. 600. Even Gregory the Great did not hesi- 
tate now to advise violent measures, with the view of effecting 
their conversion.” 


dicare non horreat, non refugiat, non pavescat, ideo morbos gigni, quia daemonia non 
colantur, et deo Febraario non litetur—Quando Anthemius Imperator Romam venit 
(about 470), Lupercalia utique gerebantur—dum haec mala hodieque perdarant, ideo haec 
ipsa imperia defecerunt, ideo etiam nomen Romanorum, non remotis etiam Lupercalibus, 
usque ad extrema quaeque pervenit. Et ideo nunc ea removenda suadeo.—Postremo si 
de meorum persona praescribendum aestimas praedecessorum: unusquisque nostrorum 
administrationis suae redditurus est rationem.—Ego negligentiam accusare non audeo 
praedecessorum, cum magis credam fortasse tentasse eos, ut haec pravitas tolleretur, et 
quasdam extitisse causas et contrarias voluntates, quae eorum intentionibus praepedirent: 
sicut ne nunc quidem vos istos absistere insanis conatibus velle perpenditis. Beugnot 
Hist. de la déstruction du Paganisme en Occident, ii, 273. 

6 Palladium in the temple of Fortune, Procop. de Bello Goth. i.15. The temple of 
Janus, i. 25.. The Pantheon continued till 610 with its idololatriae sordibus, Paulus Diac. 
Hist. Longob. iy. 37. Beugnot, ii. 288. 

7 Gregorii M. Dialog. lib. ii. Beugnot, ii. 285. At a still later period heathen rites of 
worship in holy groves were practiced in the diocese of Terracina. Gregorii M. viii. Ep. 
18, ad Agnellum Epise. Terracin. ; 

8 Gregor. M. lib. iii. Epist. 62. 

® Gregor. M. lib. iv. Epist. 26; and lib. ix. Epist. 65; ad Januar. Episc. Caralitanum, 
lib. v.; Epist. 41, ad Constantinam Augustam. 

39 Gregor: M. lib. viii. Epist. 1. 

u He prescribes, lib. iv. Ep. 26, in case a peasant should obatiniately persist in heathen- 
ism: Tanto pensionis onere gravandus est, ut ipsa exactionis suae poena compellatur ad 
rectitudinem festinare. And lib. ix. Epist. 65: Contra idolorum quoque cultores vel 
aruspices atque sortilegos Fraternitatem vestram vehementius pastorali hortamur in- 
_ vigilare custodia, atque publice in populo contra hujus rei viros sermonem facere, eosque 
a tanti labe sacrilegii et divini intentatione judicii, et praesentis vitae periculo, adhorta- 
tione suasoria revocare. Quos tamen si emendare se a talibus atque corrigere nolle 
repereris, ferventi comprehendere zelo te volumus: et siquidem servi sunt, verberibus 
cruciatibusque quibus ad emendationem pervenire valeant, castigare. Si vero sunt liberi, 
inclusione digna districtaque sunt in poenitentiam dirigendi; ut qui salubria et a mortis 
periculo revocantia audire verba contemnunt, cruciatus saltem eos corporis ad desideratum 
mentis valeat reducere sanitatem. 


von, 1.—30 


405 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. Il—A.D. 451-622. 


SECOND CHAPTER. 


HISTORY OF THEOLOGY. 


§ 110. 


MONOPRHYSITE CONTROVERSIES. 


Sources: Fragments of Acts of Councils collected by Mansi, vii. 481.-ix. 700. Liberati 
Breviarum (see preface to § 88).—Breviculus Hist. Eutych. (see preface to § 89).— 
Leontii Byzantini (about 6007) de sectis liber, in x. actiones distributus (prim. ed. Jo. 
Leunclavius in Legat. Manuelis Comneni ad Armenos. Basil. 1578. 8, in Gallandii 
Bibl. PP. t. xii. p. 621, ss.), actio v.—x. Ejusdem contra Eutychianos et Nestorianos, 
libb. iii. (lat. ex. Fr. Turriani versione ap. Canisius-Basnage, i. 535; ap. Gallandius xii. 
658 ; in Greek Ang. Maji Spicileg. roman. x. ii. 1). Zachariae Rhet., et Theodori Lect., 
Hist. eccl. fragmenta.—Evagrius, ii. 5, ss. Theophanes, ed. Paris. p. 92, ss. 

Works: Walch’s Ketzerhistorie, vi. 461, vii. and viii. Baur’s Lehre, v. d. Dreicingkeit 
und Menschwerdung Gottes, ii. 37. 


The decisions of the council of Chalcedon wer¢ regarded by 
the Egyptian party as completely Nestorian. There was there- 
fore an insurrection of monks in Palestine, led on by one of 
their number, Theodosius, against Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, 
and favored by the widowed empress Eudoxia, which was finally 
crushed after much bloodshed (451—453).? But in Alexandria, 
a considerable party, headed by the presbyter, Timothy 6 aidov- 
poc, and the deacon Peter 6 noyyéc (i. e., blaesus, Liberat. c. 16), 
separated from the newly-appointed bishop Proterius. The 


1 So also the Monophysites related that Leo the Great and Theodoret had been com- 
pletely reconciled to Nestorius ; that the latter had been invited to the Synod of Chalcedon 
by the Emperor Marcian, but had died on the way. See Zachariae Hist. eccl. in Maji 
Scriptt. vett. nova coll. x. 361, and Kenayas, bishop of Mabug, about 500, in Assemani 
Bibl. or. ii. 40. On the other hand, it is remarked by Evagrius, ii. 2, that Nestorius had 
died previously. 

2 Zachariae Fragm. ap. Majus, x. 363. Vita S. Euthymii Abbatis (f 472) by Cyril of 
Scythopolis (about 555), in an enlarged form, by Simeon Metaphrastes in Cotelerii Monum. 
Eccles. Graec. ii. 200; in a shorter, perhaps a genuine form, in the Analectis Graecis (ed. 
Benedictini mon. Jac. Lopinus, B. Montfaucon, Ant. Pugetus. Paris. 1688. 4), p. 1, ss. 
Juvenal had before sided with the Egyptians, and was also at first at Chalcedon on the 
side of Dioscurus: but (Zacharias, l.c.) accepta demum ab Imperatore promissione de 
subjiciendis tribus Palaestinae sedibus honori cathedrae hierosolymitanae, mentis oculos 
sibi obstruxit, solum destituit in certamine Dioscorum, et adversariorum in partes transiit. 


CHAP. Il.—THEOLOGY. § 110. MONOPHYSITES. 467 


greatest part of this faction continued to maintain the doctrine 
of one nature, rejected the council of Chalcedon, and considered 
Dioscurus as unjustly deposed ;* while, on the contrary, they 


3 The most important representative of this tendency which we have is Severus, Mono- 
physite patriarch of Antioch, from 4.p. 513. (See below, note 19.) Comp. my Comm. qua 
Monophysitarum veterum variae de Christi persona opiniones imprimis ex ipsorum effatis 
recens, editis illustrantur (Partic. ii. Gotting. 1835, 38. 4), 1.9, ss. Severi locus (prim. ed. 
Mansi, vii. 831. Gallandius, xii. 733, is, according to Maji Scriptt. vett. nova coll. vii. i. 
136, from Severi lib. contra Grammaticam, Joannem Ep. Caesareae): Avo tag gtcete ev 
TO Xpiot@ voodpev, tiv péev KTLoTHY, THY d2@ axTioTov’ GA’ odbdcic éypdwato THv év 
Xatxndovi civodov tiv Ghoyov tabryv ypadny, ti Ofrote dbo dtcerc Gvouacay Tepi THC 
Tod "Eupavov7A évecews dcadauBavortec. ovdeig tabtyv éotnoe THY KaTyyoplay, GAN 
éxeivnv para dtKaiwo, ti Ofrote pn dkodovOjoavtec TO Gyiw Kupidrw éx dbo diceav 
égacapv eiva: tov Xpiorév. Ob wavoducba Aéyovtec, O¢ detkatw Tic THY ev Xadnnddve 
civodov % Tov téyov Aéovtoc tHv Kaf bxéctactv Evwow duoAroyfoavtac, } civodov 
dvornny, } 8 dudoiv Eva Xpiorov, F ulav ddbocv Tod Oeot Adyou cecapkapévyny’ Kai T6TE 
yrwciucda, O¢ Kata Tov coparatov KipiAdoy Oewpia povy avaxpivovtec Thy oboddy 
dtagopay Tay cuveveybévtav aroppituc cic év tcact: Kal be érépa H Tod Adyov dborc, 
«ai étépa } Tie capKkoc, Kai O¢ dio Ta dAAHAOLE Cvvernveyuéva KaDopGat TH vO; dtiaTHor 
88 obdauGc. Ex ejusd: ad Jo. Grammat. lib. ii. c.1, ap. Majum, 1. c. p. 138: Kal ray, & 
ov 7 ’vecic, uevdvtar duetotav Kai dvaddodrav, év ovvbécer 62 bbeoTtétwv Kai ob 
év povdow idtoovordtoig. Ex ejusd. epist. iii. ad Joannem ducem ap. Majum, l.c. p. 
71: "Eug av ody sic dori 6 Xpioroc, piav be évog airod tiv te dbo Kal THY dxdoracw 
kal thv évépyetav obvbetov éx’ povce tpndhod, To Oy AeyOuevov, GvaBdvTeg KypbTTOMEY, 
avabepatifovtec Kai mavrac Tove éx’ adtod peta THY Evwow Svdda gicewr Kai Evepyerwy . 
doyuarivovrac.—Collatio Catholicoram cum Severianis habita Constantinop. anno 531, ap. 
Mansi, viii. 822: Quod ex duabus quidem naturis dicere unam significat Dei verbi naturam 
incarnatam, secundum b. Cyrillum et SS. Patres: in duabus autem naturis duas personas 
et duas subsistentias significat. At the same time they allowed that Christ is xara capxa 
duoovctoc juiv (Leontius de Sectis, act. 5. Evagrius, iii. 5)—Severus ap. Anastasius 
Sinaita (about 560) in the ‘Odyyé¢ adv. Acephalos (prim. ed. J. Gretser. Ingolst. 1606. 4), 
@. 18: "Qorep éxi tic ude Tob GvOpérov gbcewe pépoc pév Tabty¢ éoTiv H Wuyi, pépoc 
b2 76 cGua, obtw Kal Ext Tov Xpiotod, Kai tie KsGc abtod dicewe, uépoug TaEw exéyer F 
Bedrne, Kai wépove Td c&ua. This comparison was frequently used by the Monophysites 
generally after Cyril’s example (see Ep. ad Succensum, above § 88, note 21), and in like 
manner by Philoxenus or Xenayas, bishop of Mabug (488-518) in Assemani Bibl. orient. 
ii. 25. Gelasius I. (bishop of Rome, 492-496) de duabus naturis in Christo adv. Eutychen 
et Nestorium (in Bibl. PP. and in Jo. Heroldi Haereseologia. Basil. 1556. p. 686): Adhuc 
autem etiam illud adjiciunt, ut sicut ex duabus rebus constat homo, id est ex anima et cor- 
pore, quamvis utriusque rei sit diversa natura, sicut dubium non habetur, pleramque tamen 
usus loquendi singulariter pronunciet, simul utrumque complectens, ut humanam dicat 
naturam, non humanas naturas: sic potentiam in Christi mysterio, et unitionem divinitatis 
atque humanitatis unam dici vel debere vel posse naturam: non considerantes, quia cum : 
una natura dicatur humana, quae tamen ex duabus constet, id est ex anima et corpore 
principaliter, illa causa est, quia nec initialiter anima alibi possit existerej quam in corpore, 
nec corpus valeat constare sine anima: et merito, quae alterutro sibi sit causa existendi, 
pariter unam abusive dici posse naturam, quae sibi invicem causam praebeat, ut ex alter- 
utro natura subsistat humana, salva proprietate duntaxat duarum. According to the de- 
crees of the synod at Chalcedon, dvc¢ and oicia are synonymous, while rd dtoyov and 
h inéoraci¢ are different from them. But the Monophysites took gtovc, bréoracic, and 
GTou“ov synonymously, and separated 7 oicia from them. See Maji Scriptt. vett. nova 
coll. vii. 1, 11, ss.; my Comm. i. 11. That this was also the phraseology employed by 
Cyril is acknowledged by Eubulus, bishop of Lystra, ap. Majus, l. c. p. 31, who endeavors 
to exculpate him on that account. And that this controversy was more about correctness 


468 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 451-622. 


approved of the condemnation of Eutyches, for his supposed Do- 
cetism.‘ But as the doctrine of one nature had before led, in 
some cases, to the idea of considering the body of Jesus as some- 
thing superhuman,’ so also now, many attributed peculiar exeel- 
lencies to it. ‘To the most influential advocates of the doctrine 
of one nature, Athanasius and Cyril, was now added Pseudo- 
Dionysius, the Areopagite, whose writings were doubtless com- 
posed in Egypt toward the end of the fifth century,’ and there- 


of expression than of idea, even the monk Eustathius, with all his bitterness against 
Severus, is obliged to allow. See Majus, |. c. p. 291, and my Comm. i. 23. 

# Collatio Cathol. cum Severianis apud Mansi, t. viii. p. 818: Qualem opinionem de 
Eutyche habetis? Orientales dixerunt: Tanquam haereticus, magis autem princeps hae- 
resis. Zacharias (ap. Evagriam, iii. 5): Of tiv Etrvyoi¢ davtaciav vocoivtec ava THv 
BaciAcibovoay, Kai Tov povgpn. diOKovtec Biov, Gorep éEpuaiw tivi mepitrvyetv olnbévTeg 
Tipyobéw (Aeluro),—dpoyaio: zap’ airov &oixvodvTat, Kai Ge dteAeyxbévtes mpdg Tyso- 
Oéov, duooto.ov jyiv eivat xaT& odpKa Tov tod Gevod Abdyov, Kai TS TaTpi duooto.or 
Kata THY OGedtnTa, é¢ TovTicw dveydpovyv. Prevailing notion respecting the doctrine of 
Eutyches: Hormisdae P. Epist. 30, ad Caesarium: Eutyches carnis negaus veritatem,— 
ut Manichaeam phantasiam ecclesiis Christi—insereret, ete. Justinianus in Codiee, i.i.5: 
(anathematizamus) et Eutychetem mente captum, phantasiam inducentem. Vigilius Tap- 
sensis (about 484) adv. Eutychen, libb. v. (Opp. ed. P. F. Chiffletius. Divione. 1664. 4), in 
the beginning of lib. iii.: Eutychiana haeresis in id impietatis prolapsa est errore, ut non 
solum ¥erbi et carnis unam credat esse naturam, verum etiam hanc eandem carnem non 
de sacro Mariae virginis corpore adsumtam, sed de coelo dicat, juxta infandum Valentini 
et Marcionis errorem, fuisse deductam. Ita pertinaciter verbum carnem adserens factum, 
ut per virginem, ac si aqua per fistulam, transisse videatur, non tamen ut de virgine ali- 
quid, quod nostri sit generis, adsumsisse credatér. Liberatus, c. 11, Samuel, presbyter in 
Edessa, went so far as to attempt to prove to the Eutychians veram humani generis car- 
nem a Deo assumtam, et non de coelo exhibitam, nec crassi aéris substantiam in carne 
incessisse formatam (Gennadius de vir. illustr. c. 82). ° 

5 See Theodoreti Eranistes, et Isidor. Pelus. § 89, note 2. 

6 So said Dieseurus (in Maji Nova coll. vii. i. 289): *I. Xp. yevduevoc avOparo¢—rois 
avOpwrivotg KexowvorvyKe Td0eoty ov Kata dbo, GAAG Kata yapiv.. And yy yévoito 
évic TGv KaTa bow A€éyew jas duootctov Td aiwa Xpiorov. Timotheus Aelurus (1. c. 
p- 277): Stare 62 Xprorod ia povn Oedrne (consequently not as according to Severus: 
gbotc cbvOeroc), and: Ei yap qv GvOpwroe Kata obo» Kal vouov 6 uéALwY droTedciobat 
dvOpuroc év phtpe tie mapbévov, obx dv éréxOn &E abtig ei py mMpOTov THe Tapbeviag 
SiaAvbeione. 

7 De hierarchia coelesti, de hierarehia ecclesiastica, de nominibus divinis, de theologia 
mystica, epistolae (ed. Paris. 1644, 2 voll. fol.) falsely ascribed to the Dionysius mentioned 
in Acts xvii. 34, who, aecording to Dionys. Corinth. ap. Euseb- iii. 4, iv. 23, was the first 
bishop of Athens. The first trace of these writings which has been preserved to us, be- 
longs to the beginning of the sixth century, when Joannes Scythopolitanus wrote scholia on 
them (Le Quien dissertt. Damasc. prefixed to his edition of Joannes Damasc. i. fol. xxxviii. 
verso). The Monophysite patriarch of Antioch, Severus, cites them (see note 8), and the 
no less respectable orthodox writer Ephraemius, who, from 526, was patriarch of Antioch, 
refers to them (ap. Photius Cod. 229, ed. Hoeschel. p. 420). When, however, in the collatio 
Catholicorum cum Severianis, in the year 531, the Monophysites appealed to them (Mansi, 
viii. 817), Hypatias, archbishop of Ephesus, judged, ostendi non posse, ista vera esse, 
quae nullus antiquus memoraverit. . Subsequently many were found in the Greek church, 
who always asserted the spuriousness of these writings (Maximi Prol. in schol. Dionys. p. 

45, Photius Cod. 1). In the Latin ehureh, in which they had been widely diffused from 


CHAP. II—THEOLOGY. § 110. MONOPHYSITES. 469. 


fore coincided with the mode of expounding the doctrine of 
Christ’s person adopted by Cyril.* Among the many heretical 
names which the party received from its opponents,* the appel- 
lation Movod@veita: was the most common. On the other hand 
they called the opposite party Avopuoitar, or Arpvaitac.’® 

The death of Marcian (f 457) inspired the Monophysites 
with new hopes. At Alexandria, Proterius was killed in an 
insurrection ; and Timotheus Aelurus, chosen bishop. The em- 
peror, Leo I. (457-474) actually requested a new decision of 
the bishops respecting adherence to the decrees of the. council 
of Chalcedon. But as the majority declared themselves in favor 
ef the synod,’ Timotheus Aelurns was banished, and Timotheus 


the ninth century, Laurentius Valla (t 1457) was the first that detected the imposition 
He was followed in his opinion by the ablest scholars of the day; and Jo. Dallaeus de 
Scriptis, quae sub Dionysii Areop. et Ignatii Ant. nominibus circumferentur. Genevae. 
1666. 4, finally exhibited in a copious form the evidence of their spuriousness. Cf. le Quien 
l.c. Salig de Eutychianismo ante Eutychen. Wolfenbuttelae. 1723. 4,p.159,ss. J.G.V. 
Engelhardt Diss. de Dionysio Plotinizante. Erlang. 1820.8. Id. de Origine seriptoram 
Areopagiticoram. Erl. 1823. 8. The same writer's Die angebl. Schriften des Areopagiten 
Dionysius, iibers. u. m. Abhandlungen begleitet. Sulzbach. 1823, 2 Theile. 8. Baumgarten- 
Crusius de Dionysio Areop. comm. 1823 (Opusc. theol. p. 261), departing from the opinions 
of others, attributes these writings to the third century, and thinks they were written with 
the object of transferring the Greek mysteries to Christianity. See against this hypothesis 
Ritter Gesch. d. christl. Philos. ii. 519. 

8 He combats the excrescences of it, the doctrines of a confusion and transmutation, de 
Eccles. hierarchia, c. 3 (Opp. i. 297, 299), de Divinis nominibus, c. 2 (Il. c. p. 501). The 
principal passage is in Epist. iv. ad Cajum (Opp. ii. 75): Odd? dvOpwroce jv, ody de 
un GvOporoc, GAM ac 2 dvbpdrwv, avOpdruv éixéxewa, cai ixéip dvOpwrov dAnOdc 
avOpanog yeyovac. Kai 76 Aoixdv, od kata Osdv ra Beia dSpdoac, ob ta dvOpdzera 
kata GvOpwrov, arr’ dvdpwbévtog Osod, Kawwyv twa THv Ceavdpicny evépyerav jyiv 
aemoAttevuévoc. The last words of this passage are addressed by Severus, Epist. ad 
Joannem ducem, in Maji Collect. vii. 1, 71, as a gwv7v Tod ravaddov Arovvaiov tod 
*Apecotayytixov, and enlarged by the addition of trav dvdpwhévra Oedv, tov tabryy 
(évépyeav) KkatvompemGc mexoAttevpévov, wiav duoroyotuev gic Tre Kal imdoTacw 
Geavdpixny, Gomep kai TyVv piav gvotv Tov Geot Aédyov cecapkwpévnv. The Monophy- 
sites obtained from Dionysius a new formula in addition to the old Athanasian one. 

° At different times and places, for example, Acephali, Severiani, Aegyptii, Jacobitae, 
Timotheani, ete.—Facundus Episc. Hermianensis (about 540) pro defensione iii. capituloram 
(libb. v. prim. ed. Jac. Sirmond. Paris. 1629. 8. ap. Gallandius, t. xi. p. 655), lib. i. c. 5, et 
iv. c. 3: Acephali vocantur a Graecis, quos significantius nos Semieutychianos possumus 
appellare. This name, however, never became usual. 

40 So Timotheus Aelurus, in Maji Coll. vii. 1, 277. 

11 The letters are collected in the Codex encyclius. Mansi, t. vii. p. 777, ss., gives 
their form, and the writings themselves also in the same volume, p. 521, ss. Most 
remarkable is the Epist. Episcoporam Pampbyliae. Ibid. p. 573, ss.: Doctrina—quae a 
8. Niceano concilio gratia spiritali prolata est—omnia complet et omnibus valde sufficit— 
Nos et Nicaenum synodum debito honore veneramur, et Chaleedonensum quoque suscipi- 
mus, veluti secutum eam contra haereticos opponentes, ef non anathema (leg. mathema, 
ud@npa) fidei existentem. Non enim ad populum a papa Leone et a S. Chalcedonensi 
concilio scripta est, ut ex hoc debeant scandalum sustinere, sed tantummodo sacer- 


470 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL.—A.D. 451-622. 


cakopaxiadiog nominated in his place (460), who succeeded in 
maintaining the tranquillity of Alexandria by his prudent, con- 
ciliating conduct toward the opposite party. It is true, that 
new commotions arose soon after even in Antioch. Peter the 
Fuller (6 yraget¢), a monk of Constantinople, and an enemy of 
the council of Chalcedon, endeavored to carry through here the 
favorite formula of the Monophysites 6ed¢ éoravpé6n, and even 
to introduce it into the Trisagion ; succeeded in gaining over 
the monks to his party ; and put himself in the place of the de- 
posed patriarch ; but not long after he was banished by an im- 
perial decree (about "470), and there was hope of seeing the 
schism gradually disappear and be every where fargotten. But 
it proved incurable when Baszliscus, having driven the emperor 
Zeno Isauricus from the throne (476, 477), declared in favor 
of the Monophysites, reinstated Timotheus Aelurus and Peter 
the Fuller in their dignities, and by the Encyclion, required all 
bishops (476) to condemn the synod of Chalcedon.** 


dotibus, ut habeant quo possint repugnare contrariis. Duarum namque naturarum 
sive substantiarum unitatem in uno Christo declaratam invenimus a pluribus apud 
nos consistentibus sanctis et religiosissimis patribus, et nequaquam veluti matheme 
aut symbolum his qui baptizantur hoc tradimus, sed ad bella hostium reservamus. Si 
vero propter medelam eorum, qui per simplicitatem scandalizati noscuntur, placuerit 
vestrae potentiae, Christo amabilis imperator, S. Leoni Rom- civ. episcopo, nec non 
aliorum pariter sanctitati, propter istorum (sicut dixi) condescensionem et satisfactionem, 
quatenus idem sanctissimus vir literis suis declaret, quia non est symbolum neque ma- 
thema epistola, quae tune ab eo ad sanctae memoriae nostrum archiepiscoppm Flavianum 
directa est, et quod a sancto concilio dictum est, sed haereticae pravitatis potius increpatio: 
simul et illud, quod ab eis est dictum, “in duabus naturis,” quod forte eis dubium esse 
dignoscitur, dum a patre prolatum sit propter eos, qui veram Dei verbi incarnationem negant, 
his sermonibus apertius indicatum, ita tamen, ut in nullo sanctae synoda fiat injuria 
Nihil enim differt, sive daarum naturarum unitas inconfusa dicatur, sive ex duabus eodens 
modo referatur. Sed neque si una dicatur verbi natura, inferatur autem incarnata, aliué 
quid significat, sed idem honestiori sermone declarat. Nam et invenimus saepius hoc 
dixisse SS. patres. Apud vestrae pietatis imperium, quod significat vestra potentia 
decenter ago, quia ipsa synodus permanebit, sicut ecclesiae membra discerpta copula- 
buntur hoc sermone curata, et ea, quae contra sacerdotes nefanda committuntur, cessa- 
bunt, et ora haereticorum eontra nos aperta damnabuntur, et omnia reducentur ad pacem, 
et fiet, sicut scriptem est, unus grex et unus pastor. Quoniam et dominus Christus multa 
condescensione ‘circa nos usus, et humanum salvavit genus: et quia cum dives esset, 
utique divinitate, pauper factus est pro nobis, secundum quod homo fieri voluit, ut nos illa 
paupertate ditaremur, sicut b. Paulus edicit, etc. 

12 The elder tprodytov consisted of the words Is. vi. 3; ef. Constitt. apost. viii. 12. 
Miraculous origin of the later one under Theodosius II. (Felicis Papae Ep. ad Petrum, 
Full. ap. Mansi, vii. 1041. Acacii Ep. ad. eund. ibid. p. 1121): “Aysoc 6 Oed¢, dytog 
loyvpic, dytog GBdvatog (5 oravpwbeic dv’ Hude), éXénoov jude. Cf. Suiceri Thes. ii- 
1310. Bingham, vi. p. 37, ss. Walch’s Ketzerhistorie, vii. 239. 

13 In the ’Eyxtxacov (ap. Evagrius, iii. 4), it is said: Oeorifouev tiv xpyrida Kai 

 BeBaiwaww tie GvOpwrivag ebfwtac, rouréott Td aiuBodoy Tay tin’ dytwr natépwv Tov 


CHAP. IL—THEOLOGY. § 110. MONOPHYSITES. 471 


It was not long, indeed, before the persevering Acacius, pa- 
triarch of Constantinople, succeeded in exciting a popular tumult, 
which was the means of restoring Zeno Isawricus. to the throne 
(477-491); but in the mean time, the principles of the Mono- 
physites had been so firmly established in Egypt by these oceur- 
rences, that Zeno, by the advice of Acacius, issued the Henoti- 
con** (482), in which both parties were to be brought into a 
state of peace and union by reducing the points at issue to 
more general principles. Peter Mongus was patriarch of Alex- 
andria, and subscribed the Henoticon. Many Monophysites, 
however, displeased at this, separated from him, and were called 
’"Anépaio, without a head.'° Peter the Fuller was once more 


év Nixaia méAat wera too dyiov mvevpatog éxxAnotacbévtwv—yévov Troditevecbar Kas 
Kpateiv év mdoaicg Tai¢ dywardrace Tod Geod éxnaAnotacc tov dpbidofov Aadv, O¢ udvov 
TH dxdavovc mioTews Spor, kat dpxovy el¢ avaipecty ev Kabddov méone aipéoewe, 
&vwow 62 dxpav Tov dyiwy Tod Oeod éxxAgawv’ éyévtav dy2adn tH oiKkeiav loxiv, 
kai tOv cic BeBaiwowv adtod Tov Oeiov ovuBdrAov mexpaypuévav Ev Te TH Bacidevotoy 
ToAe TadTyY—Tapa TOV pr’ Gyiwy waTépwr, ert 02 Kai TaévTwV TOV TeTpaypévun ev 
Tq “Edeciov untporoAe: Kata Tov dvaceBoi¢g Nectopiov, kai Tov peta TadTa Ta éxeivov 
gpovycdvTwv: Ta dé dtedévta rHv Evwoty Kai eitasiay Thv dyiwy Tod Beod ExxAnoov 
Kai eipnvyv Tod Kodcuov mavToc, dnAady Tov Aeyouevov Téuov AéovToc, Kal wavTa 
ta év Xadnndéve tv bpw rictewc 7 Exbécer cuuBddAwv—eipnuéva Kai wenpayuéva eic 
Kavotouiay Kata Tov uvnuovevbévtTocg ayiov cupBddov Tady Tin’ dyiwy xaTépwr, Beoni- 
Couev évTav0d te Kai mavtayov Kal? éxdorny ExkAnoiay Tapa Tov dravTayod GytoTdtwv 
éxiokéruv dvabeuartivecbar, kat mvpi wapadidocbat rap’ ol¢ dv ebpicxntat.—beorifouev 
Tove TavTayou dywrdroue éxtoxdrovc éudaviLouévy TO, Geiy ToiTw quay éyKuKiio 
yedupate xaburoypddety cagGc Kataunvoovrac, bre 07 “ovy TO Geiw cToryovat cvuBsAw 
Tay Tin’ dyiwv matépwv, drep éxecgpdyoav of pv’ matépec Ayton, O¢ Rosey dptotiKd¢ 
Kai Tol¢ peta Tavita ovvedboicr Kata THY ’Edecioy untpdrodiv dpboddfo1¢ Kai dciotg 
matpdowv. Cf. J. Gu. Berger Henotica Orientis. Vitemb. 1723. 4. p. 1, ss. 

1 Ap. Evagrius, iii. 14: Adroxpdtwp Kaicap Zijvev—roic xara ’AAeSdvdperav Kai 
Aiyurrov, kai AvBiqv Kai Ievtdrodiv, x. t. A—yweoxew tude éorovddcauev, bre 
Kai qyusic Kai al ravtayod éxkAnoiar Erepov ciuBodov, 7} uaOnua, } dpov riotews, 
niotiv TAHY Tov eipnuévov dyiov cvuBdAou Tév tin’ dyiwy raTépwr, brep EBeBaiwoav 
ol uvguovevbévtec pv’ Gytor rarépec, obte éoyjKapuev, obte Exouev, odTe Eouev.—H wai 
éEnxorobbncav oi &ytot marépec of év TH ’Edeciwy ovveAbdvtec, of kai KabeAévteg Tov 
doeBH Neoréptov, -kai tov Ta éxeivov weTad Tavita dpovodvtac’ SvTiva Kai Huet Neo- 
Téptov dug Kai Eirvyq, ravaytia toic eipnuévore dpovoivrac, dvabeuatilouer, dexéuevor 
Kai Ta 18’ KedaAaa 7a eipynuéva rapa Tod THe dolac wring yevouévov Kupiddov dpyt- 
emtoxdrov tic "AAezavdpéwn dyiac xaBodiKge éxxAgoiac. ‘Ouodoyodpuev dé Tov povoyeri 
tod Geot vidv kai Bedv Tov Kata GAjOciav évavOpwrycavta, Tov Kidplov judy "Iycoby 
Xpiorov, tiv duoovo.ov TH matpi Kara THv GedtyTa Kai duootvotoy juiv Tov abrov 
Kara THY GvOpwrdtyta, KaTeAObvra Kai capkwbévra éx mvedpatog ayiov Kai Mapiac 
The mapbévov Kai Oeoréxov, Eva tvyxdvetv xal od dto* évdcg yap sivac gayéev Tad TE 
Gatpara Kai Ta xd0n, Grep éxovoiwe inéueive capki. Toe yap diatpodvTag, } ovy- 
xéovtac, 7) avtaciay eicdyovtac oid? b2u¢ deyoucba’ éemeinep 4 Gvaudprnto¢g Kara 
GAgbevav cadpkaci¢c éx mig OcoTéKov mpoobiixny viod ob mexoinke.—mnavra dé Tov Erepdv 
TL Gpovncavra, } gpovodyra, 7} viv } maxoTe, 7 ev XaAnydovi, } oig dyrote ovvddy, 
aévabcuarivouev.. Berger Henotica Orientis, p. 42, ss. 

15 These considered Timothy Aeclurus as the last legitimate patriarch. See Bustathii 


472 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 451-622. 


appointed patriarch of Antioch (485); though many Syrian 
bishops were deposed because they would not subscribe the He- 
noticon. ‘The most decided opposition to church fellowship with 
the Monophysites was presented by the Roman patriarchs, who 
had become entirely independent of the emperor since the down- 
fall of the western empire (476). All remonstrances proving 
vain, Felix IJ. issued an anathema (484)'° against Acacius, 
and communion between the Eastern and Western churches was 
broken off. 

But even in the east, the Henoticon proved but a weak bond 
of union, since the questions left indeterminate in it, were con- 
tinually employing the minds of men. | At Constantinople, the 
council of Chalcedon stood- high in estimation; and the Acoeme- 
tae even continued in.communion with the Church of Rome. 
In Alexandria, the decrees of this council were rejected. In the 
east, opinions on the subject were divided. Among all these 
churches, it is true, external fellowship was for the most part 
maintained by the Henoticon; but it could not be otherwise 
than that there should be coldness between the parties, which 
often led to open quarrels. Such was the situation of affairs at 
the accession of the emperor Anastasius (491-518). He adopted 
the principle of avoiding all interference in religious matters, 
except to protect the peace of the citizens against fanaticism.'’ 


Mon. Epist. ad Timoth. Scholasticum, in Maji Coll. vii. 1, 277: Todrw (Tiuobém AiAotpy) 
Kai toic an’ abrod péxpe Tho Ohuepov ov KoLtvwvovoty of Levijpov, dxedddove adbrodv¢ 
mpocayopevovTec. However, Timotheus himself seems to have died before the division, 
since Severus esteems him highly. See his words, 1. c.: Avooxdpov d& kai Tiuobéov 
Tov the GAnbeiag Gywviotdv—Tod¢ dyGvag TMG Kai dordlouat. It might be expected 
that the strictest Monophysites should have belonged to the Acephali, who considered 
even the body of Jesus as something higher, and these found passages in Timotheus 
Aelurus, which agreed with them (see note 6), though he had maintained that the body 
. of Christ is of like essence with our own. » 

16 Felicis Epist. ad Acacium ap. Mansi, vii. p. 1053. The conclusion: Habe ergo cum 
his, quos libenter amplecteris, portionem ex sententia praesenti, quam per tuae tibi 
direximus ecclesiae defensorem, sacerdotali honore, et communione catholicae, nec non 
etiam a fidelium numero segregatus; sublatum tibinomen et munus ministerii sacerdotalis 
agnosce, S. Spiritus judicio et apostolica auctoritate damnatus, numquamque anathematis 
vinculis exuendus -~Theophanes, p. 114: "Axdktog 08 dvataobArosg éaxe TEpt a xabaipe- 
ow, Kai 76 Gvoua abrod (Tod PiAtkoc) Ape TOV OiTTixwr. 

11 Hyagrius, iii. 30: Ovroc 6 ’Avaordovoc elpnvaiog tic Ov, obdéiv ka.vovpyetoBa 
mavreAdc HBobAero, diadepovTwe wept THv éxKAgotactikny KaTdoraciv.—H piv ody 
év Xadxnddve cbvodog ava tobrove Tobe ypdvoug obte dvagavddr év raic dywrarat¢ 
éxkAnoiate éxnpbdttero, obte unv éx mavtTwv amexnpvtteto. Ekactor dé TOY mpoEedpevév- 
Tov, O¢ elyov vopicewc, dtexpdtrovto. Kady évior pév Tov éxteBemévwr aitg para 
yevvinds dvretyovto, Kai mpoc ovdeuiav évedidocay ovAAaBiy TGv dpiobEvtar wap’ abtie ob 


. 


CHAP. IL—THEOLOGY. § 110. MONOPHYSITES. 473 


But he could not prevent all outbreaks of the latter. In Con- 
stantinople itself, he was threatened by the seditious Vitalianus, 
who put himself forth as a defender of the Chaleedonian synod 
(514), and was obliged to promise to him that he would effect 
a restoration of communion with Rome. But all negotiations 
to bring this about were frustrated by the extravagant demands 
of the Roman see; and Anastasius carried with him to the grave 
the hatred, of all the friends of the council of Chalcedon, as may 
be seen by many narratives written after his death."* 

Under Justin I. (518-527), a popular tumult finally com- 
pelled the general and solemn adoption of the Chalcedonian 
council at Constantinople, and the renewal of Church-commu- 
nion with Rome (519). The same measures were soon after 
taken in the east; the Monophysite bishops were deposed, par- 
ticularly Severus, patriarch of Antioch,’® Xenayas or Philoze- 


Lv ypduparog GAAayny mapedéxovto, GAAG Kal weTa TOAARE dwenpduwr Tig Tappyciac, Kat 
Kotvaveiv TavTEedae ovdk HvetyovTo Toi¢ uy Oexouévotc Tap’ abtig Ta ExTiOéueva. “Erepor 
8 ob pévov obK EdéxovTO THv év XaAngddvi cbvodor kai tu wap’ atric bpicbévTa, GAAG Kat 
avabéuate repréBadov aitiy te Kal Tov A€ovtocg Tépov. “AAot Toi¢g évwotiKxoic Zivevog 
évisxupivovro Kai Tavira mpdc GAAHAOUC Oieppwydte TH TE ULE Kai Taic Jdo Picecty, ol nev 
TH ovvOikn TOV ypaypadtwr KAaTévtec, of J Kal Tpd¢ TO eipyViKOTEpwy "aAAOV aroKAi- 
vavteg: W¢ mdoac Tag éxxAgoiacg eic idiag aroxptOjvar poipac, Kai unde KoLvwveiv 
GAAndowe Tove Tpoedpevovtac.—Amep 6 BactAede ’Avactdotoc Pedpuevog Tove vEewreEpé- 
Govtac TGv érxickbrav éEw0eiro, et Tov KaTEeLAjger 7} Tapa TO Elabdg Toi¢ TOTOLG TEVA THY 
éy XadAxyddvi civadov knpitrovta, 7 TabTyv avabéuate wepitévra. : 

18 Evagrius, iii. 32: ‘O ’Avaordo.og d6fav paviyaixie (vopicews) mapa tToi¢g mwoAAoI¢ 
eiyev. ' Theodor. Lect. ii. 6: Maviyaior kai ’Apetavoi éyaipov ’Avaocraciv. Maviyaior 
perv, O¢ THE UNTpPOG abTod CyAOvone abTovc (Symmachi P. Ep. ad Orientales, ap. Mansi, 
viii. p. 220: Declinemus sacrilegum Eutychetis errorem cum Manichaea malitia con- 
gruentum), ’Apecavol 0? O¢ KAéapyov riv Oeiov xpd¢g pytpd¢ ’Avaotaciov 6uddosor 
éyoyvtec. Victor Episc. Tununensis (about 555) in his Chronicon (in Canisii Lectt. ant. 
ed. Basnage, vol. i. p. 326): Messala V..C. Cos. Constantinopoli, jubente Anastasio 
Imperatore, sancta Evangelia, tamquam ab idiotis Evangelistis composita, reprehenduntur 
et emendantur. (P. Wesselingii Diss. de Evangeliis jussu Imp. Anast. non emendatis, 
append. to his diatribe de Judaeorum Archontibus. Traj. ad Rh. 1738.) On the contrary, 
Liberati Breviarium, c. 19: Hoc tempore Macedonius Constantinopolitanus episcopus ab 
imperatore Anastasio dicitur expulsus, tamquam evangelia falsasset, et maxime illud 
‘Apostoli dictum: qui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu (1 Tim. iii. 16). Hune 
enim immutasse, ubi habet OS id est Qui, monosyllabum graecum, littera mutata O in 0, 
vertisse et fecisse OS, id est Deus, ut esset: Deus apparuit per carnem. Tamquam . 
Nestorianus ergo culpatus expellitur per Severum monachum.—P. E. Jablonski Exercit. 
de morte tragica Anastasii Dicori, Francof. ad Viadr. 1744. (Opusc. ed. te W ater, t. iv. p. 
353.) Among the Monophysites Zeno and Anastasius were reckoned orthodox. See 
Zachariae Hist. Eccl. in Maji Coll. x. i. 366. 

19 To the fragments of his works which were known before (a list is given in Cave, i. 
500), many new ones have been added, which are scattered through A. Maji Scriptt. vett. 
nova coll. vii. i. Fragments of his Comm. in Lucam, and in Acta Apost. are given in 
Maji Classicorum auctorum, x. 408. Fragments and a Confession of Faith, addressed to 
the Emperor Anastasius, out, of the Arabic in the Spicilegium romanum, t. iii. (Romae, 


474 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 451-622. 


nus, bishop of Mabug, Julian, bishop of Halicarnassus ; and the 
greater number of them fled to Alexandria; for in Egypt, Mon- 
ophysitism was so generally prevalent, that Justin durst not 
undertake any thing against it there. 

This very congregating of so many bishops in Alexandria 
now led to internal divisions among the Monophysites them- 
selves.*” From the controversy between Severus and Julian: 
rospecting the question whether the body of Christ was subject 
to. that corruption, 77 @@opa, and was therefore @@aprév tu, or 
not,” which has come upon human bodies by the fall, arose 
the first and most obstinate dispute, that of the Severians 
(Theodosiani,” @aproAdrpar) and the Julianists** (Gajanitae, 
’AdPaprodoxjtat, Phantasiastae.) Soon after there sprang from 
the former the ’Ayvonrai, or Themistiani.* On the other 
hand, the Julianists were divided into the *Axtorqrai and Kru- 
otoAdtpat. About 530, the celebrated John Philoponus®* pro- 
mulgated his errors respecting the Trinity ** and the resurrec- 


1840.8) p. 722. Liber ad Julian. Episc. Halicarn. out of the Syriac in the Spicileg. rom. 
x. 169. 

20 Concerning them as a peculiar source: Timotheus presb. de Variis haereticis ac 
diversis eorum in Ecclesiam recipiendi formulis, in Cotelerii Monum. Eccles. gr. iii. 377. 
Comp. W alch’s Ketzerhist, viii. 520. Baur’s Dreieinigkeit, ii. 73. 

21 Comp. my Comm. qua Monophysitarum variae de Christi persona opiniones illustran- 
tar. Partic. ii. Gotting. 1835, 38. 4. 

22 A fragment of Theodosius, Patriarch of Alexandria, which extends over this disputed 
question, is given out of the Arabic in the Spicileg. rom. iii. 711. Among other things it is 
written: Nisi Christus—in sua carne eas qualitates habuisset, quae sine peccato consistere 
possunt, scil. nisi ejus caro par nostrae esset, tum quod ad essentiam attinet, tum etiam 
quod ad patiendum ;—nunquam stimulus mortis destructus fuisset, i. e., peccatum. Comp. 
especially Severi liber ad Julianum, quo demonstrat, quid sacri libri doctoresque Ecclesiae 
docuerint circa incorruptibilitatem corporis J. Chr. out of the Syriac in the Spicileg. rom. 
x. 169. : ‘ 

23 Juliani anathematismi, x. in Syriac in J. S. Assemani Biblioth. Vatic. Codd. Mss. 
Catal. P.i. t. iii. (Romae. 1759. fol.) p. 223, in Lat. in my Comm. ii. 5. 

24 Fragments of Themistius in Maji Coll. vii. 1, 73. In order to perceive his view, the 
following sentences are of importance: Mia rod Aéyov Oeavdpixy évépyeta Te Kai yvdote. 
But rad pév OeixGc, Ta 62 GvOparivuc 6 aitic évipyncev (consequently also éyiiwoxev). 

25 That a great part of his life does not belong to the seventh century, as has been 
usually assumed, is shown by Ritter Gesch. d. christl. Philos. ii. 501, and confirmed by a 
letter which he wrote, when an old man, to the Emperor Justinian. See Spicileg. rom. 
iii. 739. His writings were: In Hexaémeron, Disp. de Paschate (ed. B. Corderius. Vienn. 
1630. 4, more correctly printed in Gallandius, xii. 471), de Aeternitate mundi contra Pro- 
clum lib. (Venet. 1535), Commentaries on Aristotle —Among other lost book was one adv. 
Synod. Chalcedonensem (Photius Cod. 55). Fabricii Bibl. gr. vol..ix. p. 359, ss, (ed. 
Harles, vol. x. p. 639, ss.) 

26 Leontius de Sectis act. v. § 6, makes Philoponus say to the church: E/ dio Jéyete 
gboetc év TH XprotH, dvdynn tude xai dio broordoete eixeiv.—vai tabrté éore gia Kal 
bnéotaci. Eira wédwv h éxxanota: ei rabré gore Giote Kai brécractc, oixoby Aéyouev 


CHAP. II—THEOLOGY. § 111. DISPUTES UNDER JUSTINIAN I. 475 


tion,”’ drawn from the Aristotelian philosophy, among the Mo- 
nophysites (Philoponiaci, Tritheitae ; on the other side, Condobau- 
ditae and Cononitae) in opposition to whom Damian, patriarch 
of Alexandria, appeared to fall into the Sabellian error (Damia- 
nitae). At the same time, the doctrine of Stephanus Niobes, 
who removed all distinction of natures in Christ after their 
union, was condemned by the other Monophysites (Niobitae).** 


§ 111. 


CONTROVERSIES UNDER JUSTINIAN EL 


Justinian I. (527-565), a zealous adherent of the council of 
Chalcedon* endeavored to réstore unity and order both in state 
and church by means of laws; for which purpose he tried to 
bring back the Monophysites in particular, into the church. 
These endeavors were turned to advantage by a secret Monophy- 
site court party, at whose head stood his spouse, Theodora,’ 
who exercised great influence over him, and who, in the hope 
of bringing the Catholic Church, step by step, to Monophysitism, 
persuaded the emperor that the Monophysites took offense simply 
at points in the Catholic Church, which could be removed with- 
out a violation of orthodoxy. But since the dominant church 
had also its representatives at court, the emperor was led some- 
times by the one party, sometimes by the other, to enact regu- 
lations, whose natural consequence was to increase rather than 
remove the causes of dispute. 


wal tig dyiag tpiddog Tpeic dboerc, éxerdy Suodoyovuévacg Tpeic broctdcerc Exyeu.— 
*Amexpivato 6 i26r0vog: Ste Kai ~oTw Tpeig bbcelg Aéyev ude exi Tie ayiac Tpiadoc. 
"Ereye 02 taira AaBov tHv ddopuyy Grd TGv AptoToTedKGy~ 6 yap ’AptoroTéAne onoly, 
6tt eict Tév dréuwv Kai pepixai obciat, Kai pia KowH: obtac obv Kai 6 SiAd6TOvOC 
fAeyev, bre eici tpsi¢ pepixai odboiar éxi rig ayiag Tprddoc, Kat ~oTe pia Koy. Comp. 
the important fragments out of Philoponi dial. Aca:tyr#¢ ap. Joh. Damascenus de Haeres- 
‘ibus, c. 83.—His book on the Trinity against John, patriarch of Constantinople (Photius 
Cod. 75), is lost. J.G. Scharfenberg de Joh. Philop. Tritheismi defensore diss. Lips. 1768. 
4. Joh. Philoponus, eine dogmenhist. Eréterang von F. Trechsel, in the Theol. Studien. u. 
Kritiken, 1835. 1.95. Baur’s Dreieinigkeit, ii. 13. Ritter, ii. 512. 
27 Timotheus in Cotelerii Monum. eccl. gr. iii. 413. Philoponus’s book rep? dvactrdcewe 
(Photius Cod. 21) is lost. Ritter, ii. 511. 
78 Dionysius Patr. Antioch. in Assemani Bibl. orient. ii. 72. Timotheus, 1. c. p. 397, 
407, ss. 417, ss.. Baur, ii. 92. 
1 A new memorial of itis his Adyo¢ doypatixog xpdc Tove év TH évdty Tig’ AAetavdpéun 
uovaxovc¢, which Majus Scriptt. vett. nova coll. vii. i. 292, has published. 
2 Respecting her see Procopii Hist. arcana, c. 9. 


476 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. T.—A.D. 451-622. 


The conferences between Catholic and Monophysite bishops, 
which Justinian * caused to be held, were, on the whole, fruitless. 
The original Monophysite formula—‘‘ God was _ crucified”— 
which had been approved of by many, even among the Catholies 
in the east (eonacyiraz),* but which some Scythian monks under 
Justin I. had in vain attempted to introduce both at Rome and 
Constantinople (519-521),° was declared orthodox by Justinian 
(533), with the evident purpose of conciliating the Monophy- 


3 The protocol of the one a.D. 531: Collatio Catholicoruam cum Severianis, ap. Mansi, 
viii. 817.— Johannes Episc. Asiae speaks of several in Assemani Bibl. orient. ii. 89. 

+ See Walch’s Ketzerhist. vii. 261, 311, ff. 

5 Walch, vii. 262. Under Anastasius the addition in the Trishagion (see § 110, note 
12), was also introduced at Constantinople (see Zachariae Hist. eccl. ap. Assemani Bibl. 
or. ii. 59, and in Maji Nova coll. x. 375, comp. Dioseuri Diac. Ep. ad Hormisdam ap. Mansi, 
viii. 480). Its abrogation during the reaction under Justin doubtless occasioned the monks 
to defend the formula. Hormisdae Ep. Rom. Epist. ad Possessorem Episc. Afric. Con- 
stantinopoli exulantem (ap. Mansi, viii. 498): Ubi non varie tentationis aculei? Quales 
per hunc fere jugem annum quorundam Scytharum, qui monachos prae se ferebant specie 
non veritate, professione non opere, subtili tectas calliditate versutias, et sub religionis 
obtentu famalantia odiis suis venena pertulimus—Nunquam apud eos caritas novo com- 
mendata praecepto, nunquam pax dominico relicta discessu: una pertinacis cura propositi, 
rationi velle imperare, non credere: contemtores auctoritatum veterum, novarum cupidi 
quaestionum; solam putantes scientiae rectam viam, qualibet concepta facilitate senten- 
tiam: eo usque tumoris elati, ut [ad] arbitriuam suum utriusque orbis putent inclinandum 
* esse judicium, etc. The answer of one of the Scythian monks to this, Joh. Maxentii ad 
Epist. Hormisdae responsio (Bibl. PP. Lugdun. t. ix. p. 539, ss.):—Non est facile creden- 
_ dum, hanc esse epistolam cujus fertur nomine titulata, praesertim cum in ea nibil, ut 
diximus, rationis aut consequentiae reperiatur, sed tota criminationibus obtrectationi- 
busque vanis—videatur referta—_Quod monachis responsum quaerentibus Romanus Epis- 
copus dare omnino distulerit, eosdemque post multa maris pericula, longique itineris 
vexationem, nec non etiam afflictionem prolixi temporis, quo eos apud se detinuit, 
vacuos et sine ullo effectu ad has partes venire compulerit, quod omnibus paene catholicis 
notum est, nec ipsi queunt haeretici denegare—Nam et ipsi haeretici ad hoc ubique hanc 
ipsam, cui respondimus, epistolam proferunt, quatenus et saepedictis monachis invidiam 
concitent, et omnes quasi ex auctoritate ejusdem Romani Episcopi prohibeantur Christum 
filam Dei unum confiteri ex trinitate. Sed quis hanc sententiam catholicam non esse 
ausus est profiteri, quam universa veneratur et amplectitur Dei ecclesia? Confidenter 
etenim dicere audeo, non quod, si per epistolam, seu quod, si viva voce hic in praesenti 
positus idem Romanus prohiberet Episcopus Christum filium Dei unum confiteri ex sancta 
et individua trinitate, nunquam eidem Dei ecclesia acquiesceret, nunquem ut Episcopum 
catholicum veneraretur, sed omnino ut haereticum penitus execraretur. Quia quisquis 
hoc non confitetur non est dubium, quod Nestorianae perfidiae tenebris excaecatus, 
quartum et extranenm a sancta et ineffabili Trinitate eum, qui pro nobis crucem sus- 
tinuit, praedicare contendat.—An forte illos rationi credere, non imperare judicat, qui 
Christam unam personam quidem ex Trinitate, non autem unum ex Trinifate esse faten- 
tur? Sed hi qui hoe dicunt, potius rationi velle imperare, non credere, penitus convin- 
cuntur, ete. The Episcopi Africani in Sardinia exules also sided with the Scythian monks: 
comp. their book composed by Fulgentius Ruspensis lib. de incarnatione et gratia Dom. 
nostri J. C..ad Mon. Scyth. (Fualgentii Opera ed. Paris. 1684. 4. p. 277, ss.). Fulgentius 
Ferrandus Diac. Carthag. ad Anatolium Diac. Rom. Dionysius Exiguus praef. ad versionem 
epistolae Procli Archiep. Const.’ad Armenos (ap. Mansi, v. 419). 


CHAP. IlL—THEOLOGY. §111. DISPUTES UNDER JUSTINIAN Il. 477 


sites.° This step, however, was without success. In Egypt 
the Monophysites continued to be the prevailing party, though 
Justinian (536) again appointed a Catholic patriarch of Alex- 
andria, Paul. But, on the other hand, the secret endeavors of 
Theodora to spread Monophysitism in Rome and Constantinople 
were equally fruitless. Anthimus, who had been promoted to 
the see of Constantinople by her (535), was soon after (536) 
deposed for being a Monophysite.’’ Vigilius, elevated to the 
see of Rome, with the secret understanding* that he was to de- 


§ The Monophysites accused the orthodox, before the emperor, of not acknowledging 
dominum passum carne, vel unum eum esse de sancta Trinitate, nec ejusdem esse per- 
sonae tam miracula quam passiones (cf. collatio Cathol. cam Sever. ap. Mansi, viii. 832). 
The Acoemetae did really deny esse confitendum, b. Mariam vere et proprie Dei genetri- 
cem; et unum de Trinitate incarnatum et carne passum (Liberatus, c. 20), evidently misled 
by their adherence to Rome (Sam. Basnage Annal. politico-eccles. iii. 701). Justiniani lex 
A.D. 533 (Cod. i. i. 6)-—-Unius ac ejusdem passiones et miracula, quae sponte pertulit in 
carne, agnoscentes. Non enim alium Deum Verbum, et alium Christum novimus, sed 
“unum et eundem.—Mansit enim Trinitas et post incarnatum unum ex Trinitate Dei 
verbum: neque enim quartae personae adjectionem admittit sancta Trinitas——Anathe- 
matizamus—Nestorium anthropolatram, et qui eadem cum ipso sentiunt—qui negant nec 
confitentur Dominum nostrum J. C. filium Dei et Deum nostrum incarnatum et hominem 
factum et crucifixum unum esse ex sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate —Epist. Joannis 
Ep. Romae ad Justin.) ibid. 1. 8, et ap. Mansi, viii. 797): Comperimus, quod fidelibus 
populis proposuistis Edictum amore fidei pro submovenda haereticorum intentione, secun- 
dum apostolicam doctrinam, fratrum et Coépiscoporum nostrorum interveniente consensu. 
Quod, quia apostolicae doctrina convenit, nostra auctoritate confirmamus. The formula, 
however, was still suspected in the west of being Monophysite, and Bishop Cyprian of 
Toulon (about 550) was obliged to defend himself against Bishop Maximus of Geneva, 
quod beatitudo Vestra imperitiam nostram judicat esse culpandam, eo quod Deum homi- 
nem passum dixerim (the document is communicated by Schmidt in Vater’s Kirchenhist. 
Archive fiir 1826, S. 307). The addition to the Trishagion (§ 110, note 12) continued to be 
used by the Catholics in Syria (see Ephraem. Patr. Antioch. about 530, apud Photius Cod. 
228. Assemani Bibl. Orient. i. 518), till it was rejected by the Conc. Quinisextum, can. 81. - 
After that time it was retained only by the Monophysites and Monothelites (Walch’s 
Ketzerhist. ix. 480). Among the Catholics the idea arose that a quaternity, instead of a 
Trinity, was introduced by it. See Jo. Damasc. de Fide orthod. iii.10. See Royaards in 
the Nederlandsch Archief voor kerkel. Geschiedenis, ii. 263 (1842). 

7 Acta Syn. Constantinop. ann. 530 ap. Mansi, viii. 873, ss. 

8 Liberatus, c.22. In him and in Victoris Tunun. Chronic. (ap. Canisius-Basnage, i. 330), 
is found the Epist. Vigilii to the Monophysite bishops, Theodosius, Anthimus, and Severus, 
where we read, among other things: Me eam fidem, quam tenetis, Deo adjuvante et 
tenuisse et tenere significo.—Oportet ergo, ut haec, quae vobis scribo, nullus agnoseat, 
sed magis tanquam suspectum me sapientia vestra ante alios existimet habere, ut facilius 
possim haec, quae coepi, operari et perficere. In the Confession of Faith appended to it 
in Liberatus: Non duas Christum confitemur naturas, sed ex duabus naturis compositum 
unum filiam, unum Christum, unum Dominum. Qui dicit in Christo duas formas, una- 
quaque agente cum alterius communione, et non confitetur unam personam, wnam essen- 
tiam, anathema. Qui dicit: quia hoc quidem miracula faciebat, hoc vero passionibus 

succumbebat (Leo, § 89, note 7): et non confitetur miracula et passiones unius ejus- 
demque, quas sponte sua sustinuit, carne nobis consubstantiali, anathema sit. Qui dicit, 
quod Christus velut homo misericordia dignatus est, et non dicit ipsum Deum Verbum 


+ 


478 SECOND PERIOD.DIV. IL—A.D. 451-622,’ 


clare in favor of Monophysite doctrines (538), soon found it 
expedient to break through his agreement. =~ 

In the mean time, these theological affrays were increased 
by the revival of the Origenist controversy. Origen had, by 
degrees, obtained many devoted admirers among the monks in 
Palestine. One of them, Theodorus Ascidas, bishop of Caesa- 
rea in Cappadocia, who had come to court, and gained the con- 
fidence of the emperor, protected the Origenists in propagating 
their doctrines in Palestine, sometimes by violent means.? But 
at last the opposite party prevailed, by the aid of Mennas, pa- 
triarch of Constantinople, and obtained from Justinian a con- 
demnation of the Origenist errors (about 544).’° It was more 
with the design of diverting attention from Origenism than of 
being reyenged on his orthodox opponents, that Theodorus now 
persuaded the emperor" that the reconciliation of the Monophy- 
sites with the orthodox would be much facilitated by a public 
condemnation not only of Theodore of Mopsuestia,’* who had 


et crucifixum esse, ut misereatur nobis, anathema sit. Anathematizamus ergo Paulum 
Samosatenum, Dioscorum (leg. Diodorum), Theodorum, Theodoritum et omnes, qui eorum 
statuta coluerint, vel colunt. Soon after this, however, he proved his orthodoxy to the 
Emperor and the Patziarch of Constantinople. Epist. ad Justinian. ap. Mansi, ix. 35, ad 
Mennam, ibid. p. 33. 

9 Chief authority, Vita s. Sabae by Cyrillas Scythopolitanus (in Cotelerii Monum. Eccles, 
gracc. t. iii.) from cap. 36. Cf. Walch de Sabaitis (Novi comm. Soc. Gotting. vii. 1). 

10 In the Epist. ad Mennam Archiepisc. Const. adv. impium Origenem ap. Mansi, ix. 487. 
Here, p. 524, Mennas is ordered cvvayayeiv dxavtac Tove évdnuodvtac Kata Tabryy THy 
Bacirida roAw botatdrove éExtoKxérove, Kai Tolc—povacTypior jyouuévovc, Kal Tapas 
okevacal TavTa¢—Tov—‘Qpryévyv—dvabeuatioat, and from this civodoc évdnuodca pro- 
ceeded, without doubt, the fifteen canons against Origen (prim. ed. Petr. Lambecius in 
Comment. bibl. August. Vindob. viii. 435, ap. Mansi, ix. 395), though their title favors 
the fifth oecumenical council. See M. Le Quien Oriens christianus, iii. 210. Walch’s 
Ketzerhist. vii. 660. 

11 The Origenist Domitian, bishop of Ancyra, himself admitted in libello ad Vigilium 
(in Facundi Episc. Hermianensis pro defens. trium capitul. lib. iv. c. 4): Prosilugrunt ad 
anathematizandos sanctissimos et gloriosissimos doctores sub occasione eorum, quae de 
praecexistentia et restitutione mota sunt, dogmatum, sub specie quidem Origenis, omnes 
autem, qui ante eum et. post eum fuerunt, sanctos anathematizantes. Hi vero, qui pro- 
posuerant hujusmodi dogma defendere, id implere nullo modo voluerunt : sed talem relin- 
quentes conflictum, conversi sunt, ut moverent adversus Theodorum, qui fuit Mopsvestenus 
episcopus, et moliri coeperunt, quatenus anathematizaretur et ille, ad abolitionem, ut 
putabant,.eorum, quae contra Originem mota constiterant. Liberatus, c. 24: Theodorus 
Caesareae Cappadociae episcopus, dilectus et familiaris princippm—cognoscens Originem 
fuisse damnatum, dolore damnationis ejus, ad ecclesia conturbationem, damnationem moli- 
tus est in Theodoram Mopsvestenum, eo quod Theodorus multa opuscula outings contra 
Originem, exosusque et accusabilis haberetur ab Origenistis. 

#2 The enmity of the abbot Sabba to him, Vita Sabae (see note 9), c. 72, 74.—A Synod 
conyened for the purpose at Mopsuestia by the imperial command (550), came to the con- 
clusion: Theodorum veterem, qui per istam civitatem fuit episcopus, in antiquis temporibus 


CHAP. II—THEOLOGY. § 111. DISPUTES UNDER JUSTINIAN I. 479 


been long in somewhat evil repute among the orthodox, but also 
of Theodoret’s writings against Cyril and the letter of [bas to 
Maris, though the two latter had been expressly pronounced 
orthodox by the council of Chalcedon.'* Justinian accordingly 
condemned, in an edict (544), the Three Chapters (tpia nepddaca, 
tria capitula).“* In the east they very easily coincided with this 
measure ; but in the west it was so much the more obstinately 
resisted.'* On this account Justinian summoned Vigilius, 
bishop of Rome, to Constantinople (546), and prevailed on him 
there to condemn, in like manner, the Three Chapters (518)'* in 
a document called Judicatum. But Vigilius was soon induced 
to hesitate, by the decided opposition of the greater number of 
the western bishops;‘’ and he refused to adopt the emperor’s 
second edict against the Three Chapters (551).!° 

Justinian now convened the fifth oecumenical council at 


‘extra praedicationem divini mysterii fuisse, et sacris diptychis ejectum esse: et—in illius 


vocabulum, inscriptum esse Cyrillum sanctae memoriae (see Mgnsi, ix. 286). The testi- 
monies of the ancients against Theodorus, collected in the collatio v. of the fifth oecumeni- 
cal council, must be very cautiously received; for instance, Theodore’s name, in the two 
laws of Theodosius II. against Nestorius (p. 249, ss.), is a later addition. 

13 Theodoret, in the actio vili. (ap. Mansi, vii. 189). Tbas, after a long investigation, act 
ix. and x. after which the Roman embassadors expressly declare: ’Avayvwobeiane Tijg 
éxtotoAge abrov (that very Epist. ad Marin.) étéyvapev abtov brapyev dpfddofov. 

1# T.e., three points, articles: not as J. H. Micke de tribus capitulis concilii Chalced. 
Lips. 1766. 4. p. 6, thinks, the three decrees of the council of Chalcedgn, for there was no 
such decree respecting Theodore. The first edict of Justinian is lost, except fragments 
in Facundus, ii. 3, iv. 4. See Norisii Diss. de synodo quinta, c.3. Walch’s Ketzerhist. 
Vili. 150. 

18 Their leading reasons are given by Fulgentius Ferrandus Epist. vi. ad Pelagium et 
Anatolium, at the conclusion of the following sentences: Ut concilii Chalcedonensis, vel 
sithilium nulla retractatio placeat, sed quae semel statuta sunt, intemerata serventur. Ut 
pro mortuis fratribus nulla generentur inter vivos scandala. Ut nullus libro suo per sub- 
scriptiones plurimorum dare velit auctoritatem, quam solis canonicis libris ecclesia catho- 
lica detulit. - 

16 The_particulars are related by Facundus, lib. contra Mocianum scholast.—The Judi- 
catum is no longer extant, except in a fragment in the Latin translation of the Epist. 
Justin. ad Concilium oecum. v. (ap. Mansi, ix. 181). 

17 Victor. Tunun. in Chron. (lI. c. p. 332): Post Consulatum Basilii V. C. anno ix. (549). 
Illyriciana. Synodus in defensione iii. capitum Justiniano Aug. scribit, et Benenatum, 
primae Justinianae Civitatis episcopum, obtrectatorem eorundem iii. capitum condemnat. 
—Post Cons. Bas. V.C. anno x. (550) Africani Antistites Vigiliam Romanum Episcopum, 
damnatorem iii. Capitulorum synodaliter a catholica communione, reservato ei poenitentiae 
loco, recludunt, et pro defensione memoratorum iii. Capitulorum literas satis idoneas Jus- 
tiniano Principi per Olympium Magistrianum mittunt. Also defenses of the three chap- 
ters by Facundus and Rusticus. ; 

18 Or thé duodoyia rictewe ‘lover. Adtoxpdaropoc, preserved in the Chronic. Alexandr. 
ed. du Fresne, p. 344, ss. ap. Mansi, ix. 537.—Concerning the conduct of Vigilius see 
especially Epistola legatis Fraricorum, qui Constantinopolim proficiscebantur, ab Italiae 
clericis directa, A.D. 551, ap. Mansi, xi. 151. 


« 


480 SECOND PERIOD—DIV. IL—A.D. 451-629. 


Constantinople (553),'° at which Vigilius not only refused to 
attend, but even defended the three chapters in the so-called 
Constitutum.” The Synod, therefore, broke off all Church 
communion with him,” and approved without qualification all 
the decrees of the emperor hitherto made respecting religion.” 
No farther notice was taken of the Origenists,”* a circumstance 
which we shall not be far from the truth in attributing to the 
artful management of Theodorus Ascidas, who was the leading 
person at the council. Vigilius at length (554) assented to 
the decisions of the council,** to which step he was doubtless 
influenced chiefly by the success of the imperial arms in Italy 
under Narses. Immediately after, he set out on his return to 
Rome, but died by the way, in Syracuse (555). His successor, 


19 Acta in Mansi, ix. 157, ss. Natalis Alexander Hist. eccl. saec. vi. t. y. p. 502, ss. 
J. Basnage Histoire de léglise, liv. x. c. 6. Norisii Diss. de synodo v. (Patay. 1673. Opp. 
ed. Ballerini, Veron. 1729. t.i. p. 437). Against him Garnerii Diss. de syn. v. (first ap- 
pended to his Liberatus. Paris. 1675, improved in the auctar. Opp. Theodoreti, p. 493, also 
in Theodoret. ed. Schultze, v. 512).. On the other side the Ballerini: Defensio diss. Noris. 
ady. Garn. (in Noris. Opp. iv. 985). 

20 Ap. Mansi, ix. 61-106. 

_ 2! Justinian declared, with reference to Vigilius, to the synod in a rescript (in the Acta 

of the Synod, collatio vii. ap. Mansi, ix. 367) : Ipse semetipsum alienum catholicae ecclesiae 
fecit, defendens praedictorum capituloram impietatem, separans autem semetipsum a ves- 
tra communione. His igitur ab eo factis, alienum Christianis judicavimus nomen ipsius 
sacris diptychis recitari [leg. resecari], ne eo modo inveniamur Nestorii et Theodori im- 
pietati communicantes.—Unitatem vero ad apostolicam sedem et nos servamus, et certum 
est quod et vos custodietis. Without sufficient reason the Ballerini, in their defensio 
(Norisii Opp. iv. 1035), declare this writing to be spurious. 

22 The thirteen anathemas appended to Justinian’s 6uo/oyia (ap. Mansi, ix. 557) are for 
the most part verbally repeated in the fourteen anathemas of the Synod (Il. c. p. 376,ss). So 
also the 6th imperial anathema in the 10th of the council: Ez ri¢ ody duodoyet Tov 
éctavpwévov capki Kbpiov 7uav "Incovy Xptotdy eivar Gedv dAnOivov Kai Kipiov tig 
d6§n¢, Kai Eva THe ayiac TpLadoc, 6 ToLodTOC avaBeua ~oTw. 

23 Though as early as Cyrillus Scythopolit. in vita Sabae, c. 90, and Evagrius, iv. 37, the 
formal condemnation of Origen is attributed to the 5th council by confounding it with the 
synod under Mennas (see note 10), as was afterward generally believed. See on the 
other side ‘W alch’s Ketzerh. viii. 280. 

2 Vigilii Epist. ad Eutychium Archiepisc. Constant. prim. ed. P. de Marea in Diss. de 
decreto Papae Vigilii pro confirmatione v. Syn. (in ejusd. dissertt. iii. a Baluzio editis. 
Paris. 1669. 8, and appended to Boehmer’s edition of the concord. Sac. et Imp. p. 227), ap. 
Mansi, ix. 413, ss. The remarkable commencement: Ta oxdvdaia, Gxep 6 70d dvOpw- 
nivov yévouc éxOpoc TH ciuravtt Kéou@ dinyetper, oddeic dyvoei, odTw¢ OF TO oixeioy 
BotAnua xpd To avatpéas THY Tod Oeod ExkAqciav—nAnpGcat Ol@ OjxOTE TPOTw, CTOV- 
dalovra, ob uovov é& Gvouarog idiov, GAAG Kai €& quetépov Kai 25 G22wv, bid Tod Aéyev 
} Tod ypdderv, didgopa tAdcacat Teroinker’ ic TocodTOY, Sri Hudc peta Tov GdeAgev 
kal ouverioxoray quav—év TZ TOY Tecodpov ovvédwr wig Kai TH aiTZ TicTeEt Guouws 
diatedoivrac, Toi¢ cogiopact Ti¢ OvTw TovApae Tavoupyiac, abtadv éxexeipice Sieheiv.— 
"ARD éxerdy Xprotic 6 Gedc huGv—ndoNs, svyxbcewc TIH¢ HuGr Siavoiac droKtvybeions 

. Kpog eipyvav thy oixovpévyv dvexAécaro, k.T. A. 


CHAP. IL—THEOLOGY. §112. MONOPHYSITE CHURCHES. 481 


Pelagius I., acknowledged at once the authority of the fifth 
Synod,”* which led to a tedious schism between several Western 
Churches and Rome. Among the writers who, during this 
controversy, opposed the condemnation of the Three Chapters, 
the most distinguished are Fulgentius Ferrandus, deacon in 
Carthage (+ before 551);°° Facundus, bishop of Hermiane 
(t about 570);°7 Rusttcus, deacon in Rome;* Liberatus, 
deacon in Carthage (about 553) ;* Victor, bishop of Tununa 
(7 after 565).%° 

Shortly before his death (564), Justinian was misled by his 
excessive desire to bring back the Monophysites to the Church, 
so as to elevate to the rank of orthodoxy the doctrine of the 
Aphthartodocetae. Eutychius, patriarch of Constantinople, was 
deposed for his opposition to this measure; and the like fate 
awaited Anastasius Sinaita, patriarch of Antioch; when the 
death of the emperor (565) became the death likewise of the 
new docitrine.*! 


§ 112. 


DEVELOPMENT OF MONOPHYSITE CHURCHES, 


The efforts of Justinian to reunite the. Monophysites with 
the Catholic Church were so far from successful, that the sect 


26 Victor Tunun. in Chron. Post consulatum Basilii V. C. anno xviii.. Pelagius Roma- 
nus archidiaconus, trium:praefatorum defensor Capitulorum, Justiniani principis. persua- 
ione de exsilio redit : et comdemnans ea, quae dudum constantissime defendebat Romanae 
eclesiae Episcopus a praevaricatoribus ordinatur. 

26 Opp. ed. Fr. Chiffletius. Divione.1649. Bibl. PP. Lugd. t.ix. Bibl. PP. Gallandi, xi 
329. Among his letters the most remarkable are those in answer to questions addressed 
to him from Rome, ad Anatolium, quod unus de Trinitate passus dici possit, et ad Pelagium 
et Anatolium [546] pro tribus capitulis. 

27 By whom is the chief work in fav& of the three chapters pro defensione iii. Capitu- 
lorum, libb. xii. (about 548), armel contra Mocianum scholasticum (Opp. pres ed. Jac. Sir- 
mond. Paris. 1629. 8, emendatius in Bibl. PP. Gallandii, xi. 665). 

28 Lib. adv. Acephalos ad Sebastianum (in Bibl. PP. apud Gallandius, xii. 37), 

29 Breviarum causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum (ed. Jo. Garnerius. Paris. 1675, 8. 
Ap. Mansi, i ix. 659, and ap. Gallandius, xii. 119). 

80’ Chronicon ab orbe condito, only the second part is extant, from 444 to 565 (ap. Cani- 
sius-Basnage, i. 321, plur. in locis restitut. ap. Gallandius, xii. 221). 

31 Evagrius, iv. 38-40. Eutychii vita, composed by one of his adherents, Eustathius or 
Hustratius (in the Greek original, Acta SS. April. tom. i. append. p. 59), has been dressed 
out with praises even to the miraculous. Walch’s Ketzerhist. viii. 578. According to 
Eustathius, Justinian was misled by Origenists. 


vol. 1. —ol. 


482 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 451-622. 


was always becoming more distinct under his reign, and inter- 
nally established. The later dominion of the Arabians, by 
which the Monophysites were especially favored, rendered the 
breach incurable. 

Only a small part of the Egyptians followed the Catholic 
patriarch of Alexandria, who had been appointed by Justinian. 
The more numerous Monophysites chose another patriarch ; 
and thus they continue till the present day under the name 
of Copts.. The thiopian Church was always in connection 
with them.’ : ’ 

The Christians in Armenia® also attached themselves eccle- 
siastically in the fifth century to the Greek emperors, by whose 
aid they held out against the Persians, and accordingly agreed 
to the Henoticon of Zeno.‘ After Monophysitism had obtained 
acceptance among them, in consequence of these proceedings, 
they remained all the more faithful to it from the time of Justin 
I., since the Persians favored all. parties separated from the 
Greek Church. In vain did Kyrion, patriarch of Georgia, 
endeavor to procure an approval of the council of Chalcedon in 
Armenia also;° a Synod at Twin (595)* declared itself decid- 


1 Taki-eddini Makrizii (a lawyer in Cairo t 1441) Hist. Coptorum Christianorum in 
Aegypto. arab. et lat. ed. H. J. Wetzer. Solisbaci 1828.8. (A complete and more accurate 
edition. with a translation, may be shortly expected from Prof. Wistenfeld.) Eusebii 
Renaudot Historia patriarcharam Alexandrinorum Jacobitaram. Paris. 1713. 4. Michael. 
Le Quien Oriens christianus in iv. patriarchatus digestus, quo exhibentur ecclesiae 
patriarchae caeterique praesules totius Orientis. (Paris. 1740. 8. t. fol.) t. ii. p. 357. 

2 Jobi Ludolf Historia Aethiopica. Francof. ad M. 1681. _Commentarius ad Hist. Aeth. 
1691, and appendix ad Hist: Aeth. 1993. All in fol—Maturin Veyssier la Croze Histoire 
du Christianisme d’ Ethiopie et d’Arménie, a la Haye. 1739. S. 

3 The older literature respecting Armenian church history in Clem. Galani Hist. Armena 
eccl. et polit. Colon. 1686. Francof. et Lips. 1701. 8 (a reprint of vol. i. of the Conciliatio 
eccl. Armenae cum Romana. Romae. 1651. 3 voll. fol.), la Croze, le Quien, 1. c. almost use- 
less, since the Mechitarists, united Armenian monks, have begun to publish on the island 
of St. Lazzaro at Venice, the numerous Armenian historians, and to prepare an Armenian 
history. Their principal work is the history of Atmenia by P. Michael Tschamtschean 
(f 1823) in the Armenian language, 3 volumes, 4to. 1784. With it are connected the works 
of Saint-Martin and C. F. Neumann. Comp. Mémoires sur !Arménie par J. Saint-Martin, 
tomes ii. Paris. 1828, 29. Histoire d. Arménie par le patriarche Jean VI., dit Jean Catho- 
licos (ft 925) trad. de Yarménien en francais par J. Samt-Martin. Paris. 1941. 8. C. F. 
Neumann’s Gesch d. armen. Literatur. Leipzig. 1836. 8. 

-* In the year 491, at a synod.at Edschmiadsin, the Henoticon was adopted, and the 
decrees of the council of Chalcedon rejected, Tschamtschean, ii. 225. Mémoires sur 
VArménie par J. Saint-Martin, i. 329. © ~ 

5 See respecting him, Neumann’s Gesch. d. arm. Lit. 8. 94. 

* Twin (also written Thevin or Thovin), im the province of Ararat, at that time the 
residence of the Armenian kings and patriarchs. Galanus Hist. arm. c. 10, Le Quien, i. 


UHAP. Il.—THEOLOGY. §113. SEMIPELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 483 


edly in favor of Monephysitism ; and thus the Armenian Church 
still continues, to the present day, as a sect separated from the 
other Monophysite Churches,’ merely by peculiar customs. 

In Syria and Mesopotamia the Monophysites had nearly be- 
come extinct by persecution and want of a clergy, when Jacob 
Baradai, or Zanzalus, by unwearied diligence (from 541 to 
578), set in order their salberblice: and supplied them with papers 
From him the Syrian Monophysites received the name Jacobites.* 


§118.. 


CONTROVERSY BETWEEN AUGUSTINISM AND SEMIPELAGIANISM. 


G. F. Wiggers Pragm. Darstellung des Augustinismus und Pelagianismus. Th. 2. (Ham- 
burg. 1833.) S. 224. 


The Western Churches were but little disturbed by the Mo- 
nophysite controversy. On the other hand, the struggle be- 
tween Augustinism and Semipelagianism continued, especially 
in Gaul (comp. § 87, note 47, and following) though without 
leading to actual schisms in the Church. At first the Semipe- 
lagians had so much the advantage that their most distinguished 
defender Faustus, formerly abbot of the monastery at Lerins, 
afterward bishop of Reji (Rets) (¢ after 490), compelled a cer- 
tain presbyter, Lucidus, to rétract the Augustinian doctrines,! 
and his Semipelagian creed was peeely approved at the 
councils of Arles and Lyons (475).2 Hence Arnobius the 
younger,’ author of the Praedestinatus* (both about 460), and 


1360, and other older writers, place this synod earlier. Comp. however, Ang. Majus in the 
Spicilegium Rom. x. ii. 450, annotation 3. 

™ Comp. Eccl. Armeniacae canones selecti in Ang. Maji vett. Scriptt. nova coll. x. ii. 
269. Among the most remarkable of these customs are these, that the Armenians use un- 
mixed wine at the Lord’s Supper, p. 303, and keep the day of Epiphany as the festival 
of the birth and baptism of Jesus, p. 307. 

“8 Assemani Bibl. orient. t. ii—Le Quien, l. c. t. ii. j 

1 Fausti Rejensis Epist. ad Lucidum, and Lucidi errorem emendantis libellus ad 
Episcopos ap. Mansi, vii. 1008. Comp. Walch’s Ketzerhist. v. 90. 

2 His chief work de Gratia Dei et humanae mentis libero arbitrio libb. 2 (Bibl. Patr. 
Lugd. viii. 525), was subscribed there. His creed is given by Wiggers, ii. 235. 

3 See his Comm. in Psalmos (Bibl. PP. Lugd. viii. 238). Wiggers, ii. 348. 

+ Prim. ed. J. Sirmond. Paris. 1643. 8 (recus. in Bibl. PP. Lugd. xxvii. 543, Bibl. PP. 
Gallandii, x. 357). The first book contains a short sketch of 90 heresies (the 90th that of 
the Praedestinatorum), the second a liber sub nomine Augustini conflictus, in which the 
Augustinian doctrine was presented with great exaggeration (as it had been previously 


484 SECOND PERIOD.—DfV. Il.—A-D. 451-622, 


Gennadius, presbyter at Massilia (+ after 495),° express these 
sentiments without disguise. They had even penetrated to 
Upper Italy; and Magnus Felix Ennodius bishop of Pavia 
(from 511 to 521), professed them.° 

Augustinism was hated in Gaul, especially on account of the 
doctrine of an unconditional decree of God, which, in the form 
it had there assumed, distorted by the consequences drawn from 
it by its obstinate defenders on the one hand, and still more by 
its too eager opponents on the other,’ was completely and 
necessarily fatal to all morality.*. Some, indeed, did not hesitate 
to attribute these errors directly to Augustine;° but for the 


in the capitulis calumniantium, which Prosper refuted, see § 87, note 52. Wiggers, ii. 
184), the third a refutation of this book. Walch, v. 227. Wiggers, ii. 329. ‘Perhaps 
Arnobius was the anthor, as Sirmond and the Benedictines, Histoire litéraire de fa France, 
ii. 349, suppose. Comp. however, Wiggers, ii. 349. 

, 5 De Scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, continuaticn of Jerome (in Biblioth. eccl. J. A. Fabricii. 
Hamb. 1718): de Fide s.-.de Dogmatibus ecclesiasticis liber ad Gelasium Papam (ed. 
Elmenhorst. Hamburg. 1614. 4). Wiggers, ii. 351. __ 

& Cf lib. ii. Epist. 19 (see Opera, best in Sirmondi Opp. t.i.). Wiggers, ii. 356, 

7 Lucidus was forced to condemn the following propositions: Quod praescientia Dei 
hominem violenter compellat ad mortem, vel quod cum Dei pereant voluntate, qui 
pereunt,—alios deputatos ad mortem, alios ad vitam praedestinatos. The Pseudo-Au- 
gustinus Praedestinatus lib. ii. says: Quem voluerit Deus sanctum esse, sanctus est, 
aliud non erit: quem praescierit esse iniquum, iniquus erit, aliud non erit. Praedes- 
tinatio enim Dei jam et numeram justorum, et numeram constituit peccatorum, et 
necesse erit constitutum terminum praeteriri non posse.—De Deo Apostolus dicit: Quos 
vocavit, hos praedestinavit (Rom. viii. 30). Si praescientem et praedestinantem et 
vocantem in Apostolo legitis; nobis ut quid impingitis crimen ob hoc, quod dicimus, 
praedestinasse Deum homines sive ad justitiam sive ad peccatum?—Invictus enim in 
sua voluntate permanet Deus, cum homo adsidue superetur, Si ergo invictum confitemini 
Deum, confitemini et hoc, quia quod eos voluit ille, qui condidit, alind esse non possunt. 
Unde colligimus apud animum, quia quos Deus semel praedestinavit ad vitam, etiamsi 
negligant, etiamsi peccent, etiamsi nolint, ad vitam perducentur inviti: quos autem 
praedestinavit ad mortem, etiamsi currant, etiamsi festinent, sine causa laborant. Cf 
§ 87, note 31. 

8 Praefatio Praedestinati:—Quis hanc fidem habens sacerdotum benedictionibus caput 
inclinare desideret, et eorum sibi precibus et sacrificiis credat posse succurri? Si enim 
haec nec prodesse yolentibus, nec obesse nolentibus incipiant credi, cessabunt omnia Dei 
sacerdotum studia, et universa monitorum adminicula vana videbuntur esse figmenta: 
atque ita unusquisque suis erit vitiis occupatus, ut criminum suorum delectationem Dei 
praedestinationem existimet, et ad bonum a malo transitum, nec per sacerdotum Dei 
(studia 7), nec per conversionem suam, nec per legem dominicam se possere invenire 
confidat. 

° Faustus only alludes to him (if Lucidus be not meant, as Wiggers, ii. 232, assumes) 
de Grat. Dei et hum. ment. lib. arb. i. 4: Si ergo unus ad vitam, alter ad perditionem, ut 
asserunt, deputatus est, sicut quidam Sanctorum dixit, non judicandi nascimur, sed judi- 
cati. Ibid. c. 11: Igitur dum liberi interemtor arbitrii in alterutram partem omnia 
ex praedestinatione statuta et definita esse pronunciat, ete—-Gennadius de Script. 
eccl. c. 38, speaking of Augustine: Quis tanto studio legat. quanto ille scripsit? Unde et 
multa loquenti accidit, quod dixit per Salomonem Spir. S.: In multiloquio non effugies 
peccatum (Prov. x. 19).—Error tamen illius sermone multo, ut dixi, contractus, lucts 


CHAP. IL—THEOGLOGY. §113. SEMIPELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 485 


most part it was usual, inorder not to tread too closely on the 
honored man, to distinguish between himself and his adherents 
at that time,’ that these last could be the more safely con- 
demned as heretics under the name ef Predestinarians.” 

In Rome and Africa, on the other hand, the doctrines of Au- 
gustine were strictly followed.** Thus Gallie Semipelagianism 
was threatened with extinction from this quarter, and that the 
more readily, inasmuch as even in Gaul were many adherents 
of Augustine, and among them two distinguished bishops, Avitus, 
archbishop of Vienne (490-523), and Caesarius, bishop of Arles 
(502-542).% Those same Scythian monks who had raised so 
much disturbance by their efforts to introduce the formula, 
“one, ef the Trinity was crueified” (§ 111, note 5), also re- 
newed the struggle against Pelagianism, which seemed to them 
to be closely connected with Nestorianism, and against Semipe- 
‘lagianism.'* After they had been banished from Rome, because 
Hormisdas had pronounced judgment too indefinitely on Faustus, 
they brought the question of the latter’s orthodoxy before the 
African bishops living in Sardinia (523); in whose name 
Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe (} 533), now defended Augustine 
against the writings of Faustus.'? In consequence of this, 
Semipelagianism was rejected in Gaul also, under the leader- 


Aostium exaggeratus, necdum haeresis quaestionem dedit—Ennodius, lib. ii. Ep. 19, con- 
tradicts the doctrine that man has freedom only to do evil, and adds: Video, quo se toxica 
libycae pestis extendant: arenosus coluber non haec sola habet perniciosa, quae referat. 

10 So particularly Praedestinatus. In the praef.: Silerem—si non etiam audacter sub 
Augustini nomine kbros ederent.—Quis enim nesciat, Augustinum orthodoxum semper 
faisse doctorem, et tam scribendo quam disputando omnibus haereticis obviasse ? 

11 Violent controversy in the 17th century on the question whether there ever was a 
particular sect of the Praedestinarians, as the Jesuits (particularly J. Sirmond Historia 
Praedestinatiana. Paris. 1648, in ej. Opp. t. iv., and in-Gallandii Bibl. PP. x. 401) and the 
older Lutherans asserted, while the Jansenists (especially G.\Mauguin Accurata historiae 
Praedestinatianae J. Sirmondi confutatio, in his Vindiciis -praedestinationis et gratiae, p. 
443, ss.), Dominicans, and Reformed, denied it. Modern impartial historians agree with 
the latter (comp. Semler in the historical introduction prefixed to Baumgarten’s Polemik, 
iii. 312)——Comp. Sagitarii Introd. in hist. ecel. i. 1148. ‘Walch’s Ketzerhist. v. 218. 

12 Wiggers, ii. 365. 

33. Alcimi Ecdicii Aviti Gpera (poems, letters, homilies), ed. J. Sirmond. Paris. 1643. 
{Bibl. PP. Lugd. ix. 560). Caesarii Opp. (especially homilies, many incorrectly attributed 
to him) in the Bibl. PP. Lugd. viii. 819, 860; xxvii. 324. Wiggers; ii. 368. F 

44 Walch, v.117.. Wiggers, ii. 394. 

15 Epistola synodica Episc. Afric. in Sardinia exulum ad Jo. Maxentium, etc. ap. Mansi, 
vili. 591.—Fulgentii Ruspensis libb. iii. de Veritate praedestinationis et gratia Dei (his 
dibb. vii. ady. Faustum are lost) together with his other works (libb. iii. ad Monimum— 
several writings against the Arians, and other doctrinal treatises) published. — Paris. 1684. 
4; in Bibl. PP. Lugd. ix. 16. 


486 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 451-622. 


ship of Caesarius at the synod of Arausio (Oranges, 529), and 
the Augustinian system adopted, though in a form essentially 
modified;'* Thus also no teacher of Semipelagianism was con- 
demned by name ;!7 and not long after the principles were again 
taught without giving offense,"* abeoagh even rigid Augustinism 
continued to have its adherents.”® 


§ 114. 
HISTORY OF THE THEOLOGICAL. SCIENCES. 


After the Roman Empire had: been annoyed and overrun by 
barbarians, the necessity of struggling against paganism no. 
longer calling forth spiritual activity, and the study of the so- 
ealled heathen scienees having become increasingly suspicious, 
especially in the eyes of the monks, scientific cultivation de- 
riorated more and more, inasmuch as the free movement of the 
spirit was hindered by the narrowing down of orthodoxy, and 
attention exclusively directed to single barren speculations, by 
the disputes carried on with so much zeal. How narrowly 


‘6 The 25 capitula of the Synod,. to which a sketch of the doctrine of grace; in the forn 
ofa Confession of Faith, is annexed, ap. Mansi,-viii. 711. Here the Augustinian doctrines. 
of original sin, and of grace as.the only source of all that is good, are introduced; afterward 
it is said in the Confession of Faith: Quam: gratiam—omnibus, qui baptizari desiderant, 
non in libero arbitrio haberi, sed Christi novimus simul et credimus largitate conferri— 
Hoc etiam secundum fidem catholicam credimus, quod accepta per baptismum gratia 
omnes baptizati, Christo auxiliante et cooperante, quae ad salutem animae pertinent: 
possint et debeant, si fideliter laborare volverint,.adimplere. H sufficient grace be granted 
to all in baptism, it depends on man to embrace or to resist it, and there is no gratia. 
irresistibilis and no decretum absolutum. These latter, therefore, do not result, as Wiggers, 
ii. 441, supposes, as necessary consequences from the positions of the Synod. The Synod 
does not teach them, because it does. not recognize them.. 

11 Hence Faustus is still honored in Provence: as a saint, which is indeed censured by 
some (for example, Baronius,.ad ann. 490, §.42), but defended by others. Comp. J. Stilting: 
de §. Fausto comm. hist. in Actis SS. Sept. vii. 651. 

18 So by the African bishop Junilius (about 550), de partibus divinae legis (Bibl. FP. 
Lugd. x.) ii. 12, 15, by Gregory, arehbishop of Tours (t 595) Miraeuloram (Bibl. PP. xi.) ii: 
1, vii. 1, 2, 9, 11, 13, by Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome (ft 604), Comp. G. F'. Wiggers, 
de Gregorio M. ejusque placitis anthropologicis comm. ii. Rostochii..1838-40, 4. 

19 To these belong Fulgentius Ferrandus—see § 111, note 26. Comp. his Paraeneticus: 
ad Reginum comitem; Facundus, bishop of Hermiane—see § 111, note 27, contra Master 
ap. Gallandius, xi. 811; Isidore, archbishop of Seville (ft 636), Sententt. ii. 6. 

? Bossuet’s Weltgesch, continued. by J. A. Cramer, v. ii. 52. L. Wachler’s Sundials 
der Geschichte der Literatur, (Zweite Umarbeit. Frankf. a. M. 1823),,ii. 5. Mimscher’s- 
Dogmengesch. iii..44, tops 


CHAP. IIL—THEOLOGY. § 114. THEOLOGICAL SCIENCES. 487 


_ they began in the west to judge of the writings of the older fa- 
thers, according to the standard of the new orthodoxy, is proved 
by the so-called Decretum Gelasii de libris recipiendis et non re- 
cipiendis.? 

The writers who were engaged in the various controversies 
have been already named. In the Western Church, Faustus 
Rejensis (§ 1138, notes 1, 2), Fulgentius Ruspensis (§ 113, note 
15), Fulgentius Ferrandus, Facundus Hermianensis, Liberatus 
(§ 111, note 26, ff.); among the Orientals, Leontius Byzantinus 
(preface to § 110), and Johannes Philoponus (§ 110, note 25). 

There was now less and less of independent investigation ; 
and instead of it men were content with compilations from the 
highly esteemed older fathers.? By way of exegesis began the 
series of the so-called catenae ;* in the east with Procopius of. 
Gaza (about 520),° in the west with Primactus, bishop of 


2 In some MSS. it is attributed to Damasus (366-384), in the Spanish MSS. to Hormisdas 
(514-523), but commonly to a Roman Synod under Gelasius (496). On the contrary, it is 
wanting in the Dionysian collection of decrees (525), and in the Spanish (about 600) is 
placed entirely at the end, behind the decrees of Gregory the Great, which points to a 
later addition. It is afterward first mentioned, but without the name of an author, by the 
English bishop Adhelmus (about 680) de virginitate, c. 11, first attributed to Gelasius by 
Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims: (about 860) Opusc. 1. capitulorum, c. 24. That it was 
gradually enlarged is shown by the different existing texts (three in Mansi, viii. 153). 
In like manner, the difference of authors may be inferred from the fact that the Opera 
Cypriani are placed both among the libris recipiendis and the non-recipiendis. At the 
time of Hormisdas the basis of this list was already in existence (Horm. Ep. ad Possessorém 
ap. Mansi, viii. 499: Non improvide veneranda patrum sapientia fideli potestati quae essent 
catholica dogmata definiit, certa librorum etiam veterum in auctoritatem recipienda, sancto 
Spiritu instruente,; praefigens), but not in the form of a decree, since, in the latter case, 
Dionysius would have adopted it. At the time of Hormisdas the Opera Fausti were also 
not yet in it, since Hormisdas hesitates to condemn Faustus. The decree, however, must 
have received its present form substantially in the first half of the sixth century, because 
in it no writings and heretics of this century whatever are mentioned, and only the first 
tour general councils. Single interpolations were indeed made afterward. Thus, in 
Hincmar’s time the canones Apostolorum were not yet adduced among the Apocryphis. 
Cf. Mansi, viii. 145, 151. Regenbrecht de Canonibus Apostolorum et codice Eccl. his- 
panae diss. Vratisl. 1828. 8. p. 52.—In this decree, among others, the Historia Eusebii 
Pamph. the Opuscula Tertulliani, Lactantii, Clementis Alex., Arnobii are reckoned among 
the libris apocrpyhis, qui non recipiuntur. 

3 Cassiodorus Institt. div. praef.: Quapropter tractores vobis doctissimos indicasse suf- 
ficiat, qaando ad tales remisisse competens plenitudo probatur esse doctrinae. Nam et 
yobis quoque erat praestantius praesumpta novitate non imbui, sed priscorum fonte satiari. 

4 J. F.S, Augustin de Catenis PP. graec. in N. T. observationes. Halae. 1762 (in J. Av 
Noesselti iii. Commentatt. ad Hist. Eccl. pertinent. Halae. 1817. 8. p. 321, ss.). 

3 Comm. in Octateuchum, in Esaiam, Proverbia, in xii: Proph. minores, ete. Cf. Fabricii 
Bibl. gr. vol. vi. p. 259 (ed. Harles, vol. vii p. 563). Augustin, 1. c. p. 385. In Ang..Maji 
Classicorum auctoram e Vaticanis codd. editorum, t. vi. (Romae. 1834. 8) are published 
besides comm. in Genesin usque ad cap. xviii. and fragm. in Cant. Rapieenie, t. ix. (1837) 
Comm. in Salom. Proverbia, Catena in Cant. Cant. “iF 


488 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. Il.- A.D. 451-622. 


Adrumetum (about 550). Most of the wuks, too, of Magnus | 
Aurelius Cassidorus Senator (+ after 562)," and of Isidore, 
bishop of Seville (+ 636),° are written in this compilation 
method. The yprotcavixy tonoypadia of the Nestorian Cosmas 
Indicopleustes (about 535), in its remarkable theologico-geo- 
graphical part, is only a compilation, chiefly from the works of 
Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodorus of Mopsuestia.° 

Distinguished as an independent thinker, in this age of imita- 
tion and authorities, was the Aristotelian philosopher Anicius 
Manlius Torquatus Severinus Boethius (+ 525), who, however, 
in his philosophical writings,'® refers so little to Christianity, 
that one is led to doubt not only of the authenticity of the 
theological works’! ascribed to him, but even whether he could 
have been a Christian.” 


* Comm. in Epistolas Pauli. 

7 Thus his Comment. in Psalmos is drawn from Augustine; his Historia eccl. tripartita 
in twelve books (see preface to § 1).—De institutione divinarum literarum libb. ii. (a more 
correct title is: Institutiones qaemadmodum divinae et humanae debeant intelligi lectiones 
libb. ii. See Credner’s Hin]. in d. R. T. i. i. 15). Historically important are his variae 
epistolae libb. xii. Of his de rebus gestis Gothorum libb. xii. there remains only the 
extract by Jordanis (see § 108, note 3). His book de vii. disciplinis was much used in the 
middle ages. Opp. ed. J. Garetius. Rothomagi. 1679. (Venet. 1729.) 2 vol. fol. La vie de 
Cassiodore par F. D. de Ste Marthe. Paris. 1694. 12. Cassiodorus by Staudlin, in the 
Kirchenhist. Archive for 1825, p. 259, ff. and 381, ff Ritter’s Gesch. d. christl. Philos. ii 
598. Bahr’s christl. romische Theologie, 8. 418. 

§ Comm. in libros hist. Vet. Test.—De ecclesiasticis officiis libb. ii—Sententiarum s. de 
summo bono libb. iii. (important for the middle ages. Sententiarii.\—Regula Monachorum. 
—De Scriptoribus eccles—and many others. See the chief work Originum s. Etymolo- 
giarum libb. xx.—Hist. Gothorum, Vandalorum et Suevorum in Hispania.—Opp. ed. J. 
Grial. Madr. 1599 (Paris. 1601.. Colon. 1617). fol. Faust. Arevalo. Romae. 1797. vii. voll. 4. 
Bahr. 8. 455. 

® Prim. ed. B. de Montfaucon in Collect. nov. PP. Graec. t. ii. (Paris. 1706): recus. in 
Gallandii Bibl. PP. t. xi. p. 401, ss. The Nestorianism of Cosmas was first pointed out by 
La Croze Hist. du Christianisme des Indes, t. i. p. 40, ss. Cf. Semler Hist. eccl. selecta 
capita, i. p. 421, ss. 

10 His principal work: de Consolatione philosophiae libb. v. Besides this, translations 
from the writings of Porphyry and Aristotle, and commentaries on the same. He laid the 
foundation of the predilection for the Aristotelian philosophy in the west, as John Philoponus 
did at the same time in the east (§ 110, note 25). 

11 Adv. Eutychen et Nestor. de duabus naturis et una persona Christi—Quod Trinitas 
sit unus Deus et non tres dii ad Symmachum.—Utrum Pater, Filius, et Sp. S. de divinitate 
substantialiter praedicentur. Comp. Hand, in the Encyclopadie of Ersch and Gruber, xi 
283. Bahr’s christl. romische Theologie, S. 423. On the other hand, Gust. Baur. de A. M.S. 
Boéthio christianae doctrinae assertore, Darmst, 1841. 8, is in favor of the authenticity. 

12 Much used in the schools of the middle ages. In the eighth century he was even en 
rolled among the saints, and in addition to two other Severini, worshiped on the 23d Octo 
ber. That he was a Christian is denied by Gottf. Arnold (Kirchen u. Ketzerhist. Th. i. B. 
6, cap. 3, § 7), and Hand, 1.c, On the contrary, G. Baur asserts that he was at least out- 
wardly a Christian. Comp. Ritter’s Gesch. d. christl. Philos. ii. 580. 


CHAP. II—THEOLOGY. §114. THEOLOGICAL SCIENCES. 489 


The prevailing dialectic development of Christian doctrine 
must have been as unsatisfactory as it was injurious to deeper 
religious spirits, and therefore mysticism, in opposition to it, 
obtained a fuller and better developed form in the works of 
Pseudodionysius Areopagita,* which appeared toward the end 
of the fifth century. These writings, banishing the divine es- 
sence, in the manner of the New Platonists, beyond all being 
and knowledge, and representing all things as proceeding in reg- 
ular gradation out of it as their essence, proposed to teach how 
man, rightly apprehending his own position in the chain of being, 
might elevate himself through the next higher order to com- 
munion with still higher orders, and finally with God himself. 
At present they spread but gradually in the oriental church, till 
they penetrated in the middle ages into the west also, and so 
became the basis of all the later Christian mysticism. 

There were now but few institutions for the advancement 
of theological learning any where; in the west none whatever." 
The monkish contempt displayed by Gregory the Great,'*bishop 


13 Comp. § 110, note 7, and Engelhardt’s works there quoted. Ritter’s Gesch. d. christl. 
Philosophie, ii. 515. Die Christl. Mystik in ihrer Entwickelung u. in ihren Denkmalen 
von A. Helfferich (2 Th. Gotha, 1842) i. 129; ii. 1. - 

14 Cassiodor. de. Inst. div. lit. praef.: Cum studia saecularium literarum magno desiderio 
fervere cognoscerem (comp. Sartorius Versuch iiber die Regierung der Ostgothen wahrend 
ihrer Herrschaft in Italien. Hamburg. 1811. S. 152, ss. Manso Gesch. des ostgoth. Reichs 
in Italien. Breslau. 1824.8. 132), ita ut multa pars hominum per ipsa se mundi prudentiam 
crederet adipisci; grayissimo sum (fateor) dolore permotus, quod scripturis divinis magistri 
publici deessent, cam mundani auctores celeberrima procul dubio traditione pollerent. Ni- 
sus sum ergo cum b. Agapito Papa urbis Romae, ut sicut apud Alexandriam multo tempore 
fuisse traditur institutum, nunc etiam in Nisibi civitate Syrorum ab Hebraeis sedulo fertur 
exponi (see below, § 122, note 5), collatis expensis in urbe Romana professos doctores 
scholae potius acciperent christianae, unde et anima susciperet aeternam salutem, et 
casto atque purissitno eloquio fidelium lingua comeretur. Sed cum per bella ferventia et 
turbulentia nimis in Italico regno certamina desiderium meum nullatenus valuisset im- 
pleri: quoniam non habet locum res pacis temporibus inquietis; ad hoc divina caritate 
probor esse compulsus, ut ad vicem magistri introductorios vobis libros istos, Domino 
praestante, conficerem, etc. What substitute was adopted may be seen from Conc. Va- 
sense, iii. ann. 529, can. 1: Hoc enim placuit, ut omnes presbyteri, qui sunt in parochiis 
constituti, secundum consuetudinem, quam per totam Italiam satis salubriter teneri cog- 
novimus, juniores lectores—secum in domo—recipiant: et eos—psalmos parare, divinis 
lectionibus insistere, et in lege domini erudire contendant: ut sibi dignos successores pro- 
videant. In Spain we find the first trace of a kind of episcopal seminaries, Conc. Tolet. 
ii. ann. 531, can. 1: De his, quos voluntas parentum a primis infantiae annis clericatus 
officio manciparit, hoc statuimus observandum, ut mox detonsi vel ministerio lectoram 
cum traditi fuerint, in domo Ecclesiae sub episcopali praesentia a praeposito sibi debeant 
erudiri. 

18 Pauli Warnefridi (about 775) de Vita S. Gregor. Papae, libb. iv. (prim. ed. Jo. Mabil- 
lon in the Annales Ord. 8. Bened. saec. i. p. 385) and Johannis Eccl, Rom. Diaconi (abont 
875) Vita S. Greg, libb. iv, both in tome iv. of the Benedictine edition of Gregory’s works. 


490 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IT.—A.D. 451-622. 


of Rome = tenes 590-604), for the liberal sciences,’* contributed 
much to the daily increasing neglect of them; but the later 
traditions of his hostility to all literature, are not to be fully 
believed.” 


New fields were now opened to ecclesiastical writers in col- 
.ecting and arranging the saints’ traditions, in which Gregory, 
archbishop of Tours (573-595), and Gregory the Great,” 
led the way ; and in the cultivation of ecclesiastical law.?” In 


Comp. the life composed by the Benedictines, and given in that volume. G. F. Wiggers 
de Gregorio M. ejusque placitis anthropologicis, comm. ii. Rostoch. 1838. 4. p. 11—Greg- 
ory’s most important works (see Bahr’s christl. rom. Theologie, 8. 442. Wiggers, p. 35): 
Expositionis ‘in Job. s. Moralium libb. xxxv.—Liber pastoralis curae ad Joh. Ravennae 

Episc. (by Anastasius Sinaita, patriarch of Antioch, immediately translated into Greek).— 
Dialogoram de vita et miraculis Patrum Ital. et de aeternitate animarum, libb. iv. (trans- 
lated into Greek by Pope Zacharias, about 744)—Epistolarum libb. xiv. (according to the 
older arrangement, libb. xii.) Liber Sacramentorum de circulo anni s. Sacramentarium. 
—Antiphonarius s. gradualis liber—Opp. ed. Petr. Gussanvillaeus. voll. iii. Paris. 1675. 
fol. studio et labore Monachorum Ord. S. Bened. e Congr §. Mauri, voll. iv. Paris. 1705. 
fol. locupletata a J.B. Galliccioli. Venet. 1768, ss. voll. xvii. 4. Concerning the modern 
abbreviators of Gregory see Oudinus de Scriptt. eccl. ant. i, 1544. 

16 For, example, in the epistola ad Leandrum prefixed to his Exposit. libri Jobi: Non 
barbarismi confusionem devito, situs motusque praepositionum casusque servare con- 
temno, quia indignum vehementer existimo, ut verba caelestis oraculi restringam sub reg- 
ulis Donati.—Lib. xi. Epist. 54,°ad Desiderium, Episc. Viennensem: Pervenit ad nos, 
quod sine verecundia memorare non possumus, Fraternitatem tuam grammaticam quibus- 
dam exponere. Quam rem ita moleste suscepimus, ac sumus vehementius aspernati, ut 
ea, quae prius dicta fuerant, in gemitus et tristitiam verteremus: quia in uno se ore cum 
Jovis laudibus Christi laudes non capiunt, etc. 

17 Joannes Sarisburiensis (about 1172) in his Policraticus, lib. ii. c. 26: Doctor sanctus 
ille Gregorius—non modo Mathesin jussit ab aula, sed, ut traditur a majoribus, incendio 
dedit probatae lectionis scripta Palatinus quaecumque recepit Apollo. Lib. viii. c. 19, fer- 
tur b. Gregorius bibliothecam combussisse gentilem, quo divinae paginae gratior esset 
locus, et major auctoritas, et diligentia studiosior. Barthol. Platina (about 1480) de Vitis 
Pontificum, in Vita Gregorii: Neque est cur patiamur, Gregorium hac in re a quibusdam 
—carpi, quod suo mandato veteram aedificia sint dirupta, ne peregrini et advenae—post- 
habitis locis sacris, arcus triumphales et monumenta veterum cum admiratione inspicerent. 
Platina tries to defend him from the charge. Id. in Vita Sabiniani: Paululum etiam ab- 
fuit, quin libri ejus (Gregorii) comburerentur, adeo in Gregorium ira et invidia exarserat 
homo malevolus. Sunt qui scribant, Sabinianum instigantibus quibusdam Romanis hoc in 
Gregorium molitum esse, quod veterum statuas tofa urbe, dum viveret, et obtruncaverit et 
disjecerit, quod quidem ita vero dissonum est, ut illud, quod de abolendis aedificiis majorum 
in vita ejas diximus. Against the credibility of these stories see P. Bayle Dictionnaire 
hist. et crit. Art. Gregoire, not. H. and M. Jo. Barbeyrac de la Morale des Péres, c. 17 
§ 16. What Brucker, Hist. Phil. iii. 560, says in their defense is of no importance. 

18 De Gloria Martyrum libb. ii., de Gloria Confessorum lib. i., de Virtutibus et Miraculis 
S. Martini libb. iv., de Vitis Patram lib. i., in his Opp. ed. Theod. Ruinart. Paris. 1699. fol 
(comp. Div. I. § 53, note 46). Dr. C. G. Kries de Greg. Tur. Episc. vita et scriptis. Vratisl. 
1839. 8. 49 Dialogorum libb. iv.; see above, note 15. 

20 A. Gallandii de Vetustis canonum collectionibus dissertationum sylloge (Dissertations 
of Coustant, de Marca, the Ballerini, Berard, Quesnell, etc.). Venetiis. 1778. fol. recus. 
Mogunt: 1790, t. ii. 4. (L. T. Spittler’s) Geschichte des kanonischen Rechts bis auf die 
Zeiten des falschen Isidorus. Halle. 1778. 8. 


CHAP. IL—THEOLOGY. §114. THEOLOGICAL SCIENCES. 49% 


the Greek Church,’* soon after the council of Chalcedon, ap- 
peared the so-called apostolic canons,” claiming to form the 
unalterable basis of all ecclesiastical arrangements. About the 
same time the Christians began to put together the decrees of 
councils in the order of the subjects, instead of in the old 
chronological way. The oldest collection of this kind now 
extant is that of Johannes Scholasticus of Antioch (afterward 
patriarch of Constantinople, + 578),?* which was in great repute 
for several centuries. Justinian’s code was also so rich a source 
for ecclesiastical matters, that particular collections of church 
laws were made soon after his time, out of his Institutes.” 
Those of John Scholasticus were at a later period adapted to 
Justinian’s by a new arrangement of the collection of canons,” 
and thus arose the first Nomocanon,** 

In the Latin Church there was not even a tolerably complete 
chronological collection of the canons till that made after the 
council of Chalcedon, since known as the prisea translatio.”" 
A still fuller collection was afterward made by Dionysius Exi- 
guus (about 500)* in a better translation, to which was added, 
in a second part, a collection of the papal decretals. In Spain 
there had been a collection of canons, between 633 and 636, 
on the model of that by Dionysius (the Greek ones in a peculiar 
version), and of papal decretals for the use of the Spanish 

21 Jos. Sim. Assemani Bibliotheca juris orientalis, civilis et canonici. Romae. 1762-66. 
t. v. 4. (incomplete, contains merely the Codex canonum eccl. Graecae and the Codex 
juris civilis eccl. Graecae). . A. Biener de collectionibus canonum Eccl. Graecae sche- 
diasma litterarium. Berol. 1827. 8. 


22 See Div. I. § 67, note 5. 

23 Published in Guil. Voélli et H. Justelli Bibliotheca jaris canonici veteris (t. ii. Paris. 
1661. fol.) ii. 449. 

24 The Collectio lxxxvii. capitulorum, collected by Johannes Scholasticus from the No- 
vellae ; the Coll. xxv. eapitt. from the Codex and Novellae:(published in @. E. Heimbach. 
Anecdota, t.ii. Lips.1840. 4); and that erroneously pwblished under the name of Theod. 
_-Balsamon in Voélli et Justelli Bibl. juris ii. 1223 collectio constitt. ecelesiasticarum, which 
was compiled at the time of Heraclius, perhaps also of Justin II. from the Pandects, 
Codex, and Novellae. Comp. F. A. Biener’s Gesch. d. Novellen Justinians. Berlin. 1824 
8. S. 166. 

25 Tn this form it is found in Voélli et Justelli Bibl. ii. 603. 

26 Though this name is much more modern. See Biener’s Geseh. d. map risers 194 
Heimbach Anecd. t. ii. Prolegom. p. lv. 

27 Best edition that of the Ballerini Opp. Leonis, iii. 473, from which Mansi, vi. 1105 
Concerning it comp. Ballerini de Ant. collectionibus caronum (before tf. iii. Opp. Leonis 
and in Gallandii Sylloge), P. ii. cap. 2, § 3. Spittler, S. 129: 

28 Published in Voélli et Justelli Biblioth. i. 101. Ballerini, 1. c. P. iii cap. 1-3. Spitt- 
ler, 8. 134. According to Drey, itiber die Constit. u. Kanones d. Apostel, p. 203, even before 
the end of the fifth century. 


492 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 451-622. 


Church,” which was afterward called the collection of Zsidore,* 
because it was erroneously ascribed to the most celebrated man 
of that time, Isidore, archbishop of Seville (+ 636). The laws 
respecting penance had gradually become so numerous as to 
require a separate work. Johannes Jejunator (6 vyoevric), pa- 
triarch of Constantinople (from 585-593), wrote the dxoAovOia 
wai taéic éni éouodoyoupévwr,*' the first libellus poenitentialis 
{rules of penance). 





THIRD CHAPTER. 


HISTORY OF THE HIERARCHY. 


§ 115. 
PRIVILEGES OF THE CLERGY. 


The clergy, and particularly the bishops, received new privi- 
leges from Justinian. He intrusted the latter with civil juris- 
diction over the monks and nuns, as well as over the clergy.’ 
Episcopal oversight of morals, and particularly the duty of 
providing for all the unfortunate (§ 91, notes 8-10), had 
been established till the present time only on the foundation 
of ecclesiastical laws: but Justinian now gave them a more 


29 Published by Ant. Gonzalez in 2 Div. Collectio canonum Eccl. Hispanae. Matriti. 
4608, and Epistelae decretales ac reseripta Rom. Pontiff. Matriti. 1821. fol.; comp. Balle- 
rini,1.c. P. ii. cap. ii. §2; P.iiic.4. M.E. Regenbrecht de Cann. Apostolorum et codice 
Eccl. Hispaniae diss. Vratisl. 1828.8. Eichhorn on the Spanish collection of the sources 
of ecclesiastical jurisprudence, in the, Transactions of the Royal Academy of Sciences at 
Berlin for the year 1834. (Berlin. 1836. 4to.) Historical and Philosephical Class, p. 89. 

30 According to Hicbhorn, p. 113, since Pseudo-Isidore. 

31 Afterward variously interpolated; published in J. Morini Comm. Hist. de disciplina 
in administratione Sacramenti Poenitentiae. Paris. 1651. fol. in append. 

1 Novellae Justin. 79 et 83 (both 4-D. 539). More particular notices are given in Nov. 
123, cap. 21: Si quis autem litigantium intra x. dies contradicat iis, quae judicata sunt, 
tanc locorum judex causam examinet.—Si judicis sententia contraria fuerit iis, quae a Deo 
amabili Episcopo judicata sunt: tunc locum habere appellationem contra sententiam judi- 
cis —Si vero crimen fuerit, quod adversus quamlibet memoratarum reverendissimarum 
personarum inferatur,—judex ultionem ei inferat legibus congruentem. Further, in a 
criminal accusation: Si Episcopus distulerit judicare, licentiam habeat actor civilem judi- 
cem adire. Cf. B. Schilling de Origine jurisdictionis eccles. in causis civilibus. Lips. 
£225. 4. p. 41, ss. 


CHAP. II.—HIERARCHY. § 115. PRIVILEGES OF THE CLERGY. 493 


general basis, by founding them on the civil law also.* He 
made it the duty of the bishops, and gave them the necessary 
civil qualifications, to undertake the care of prisoners, minors, 
insane persons, foundlings, stolen children, and women ;* and in- 
vested them with the power of upholding good morals* and im~ 
partial administration of justice. It is true that he established 
a mutual inspection of the bishops and of the civil magistrates ; 
but he gave in this respect to the latter considerably smaller 
privileges than to the former.®° For example, he gave the bish- 
ops a legal influence over the choice of magistrates,® and security 
against general oppression on their part ;’ allowed them to inter- 
fere in case of refusal of justice ;° and, in special instances, even 
constituted them judges of those official personages.’ In like 
manner, he conveyed to them the right of concurrence in the 
choice of city officials,° and a joint oversight of the administra- 
tion of city funds, and the maintenance of public establishments." 
Thus the bishops became important personages even in civil life; 
and were farther honored by Justinian, in freedom from parental 
authority,’ from the necessity of appearing as witnesses, and 
from taking oaths. 


2 C. W. de Rhoer dé Effectu relig. christ. in jurisprudentiam rom. fasc.1. Groningae. 
1776. 8. p. 94. C. Riffel’s geschichtl. Darstellung des Verhiltnisses zwischen Kirche und 
Staat.. (Mainz. 1836) i. 622. 

3 Cod. Justin. lib. i. tit. iv. de episcopali audientia (i.e. judicio) 1. 22.—l. 30.—1. 27. 1. 28. 
—l. 24.—1. 33. : 

* In addition to their former powers against pimps (Cod. Th. xv. viii. 2) and sorcerers 
(Cod. Th. ix. xvi. 12), Justinian gave them also the privilege of interfering against gaming 
(Cod, Just. i. iv. 25). 

5 The Praesides provinciarum were obliged to see to it that bishops observed ecclesias- 
tical laws relating to ecclesiastical things (Cod. Just. i. iii. 44, § 3, Nov. cxxxiii.c. 6), par- 
ticularly those relating to the unalienableness of church possessions (Nov. vii. in epil.) and 
the regular holding of synods (Nov. cxxxvii. c. 6). They could only, however, put the 
bishops in mind of their duty, and then notify the emperor. 

6 Nov. cxlix. ¢. 1. 

7 Cod. Just. i. iv. 26, Nov. cxxxiv. c. 3. 

8 Nov. lxxxyi. c. 1. : 

9 Nov. Ixxxvi. c. 4 (A.D. 539): Quodsi contingat aliquem ex subditis nostris ab ipso 
clarissimo provinciae praeside injuria affici, jabemus eum sanctissimum illius urbis Epis- 
copum adire, ut ille inter cl. praesidem, eumve, qui se ab eo injuria affectum putat, 
jadicet. If the president (of a province) were condemned, and gave no satisfaction, the 
matter was referred to the emperor, and in case he found the episcopal sentence just, the 
president was condemned to death. According to Nov. viii. c. 9, exxviii. c. 23, every 
magistrate, after laying down his office, was obliged to remain fifty days in the province 
to satisfy any claims that might be made against him. If he removed sooner, every one 
injured might complain to the bishop. 

10 Cod. Just. i. iv. 17, Noy. cxxviii. 16. 11 Cod. Just. i. iv. 26. 

12 Novell. Ixxxi. 13 Novell. cxxiii. c. 7. 


494 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A-D. 451-622. 


Finally, Heraclius committed to them jurisdiction over the 
clergy in criminal cases also (628). 


§ 116. 
DEPENDENCE OF THE HIERARCHY ON THE STATE. 


Notwithstanding these great privileges, the hierarchy became 
still more dependent on the State. As the emperors sent their 
civil laws. to be promulgated by the Praetorian prefects, so, in 
like manner, ecclesiastical laws went forth from them to the 
patriarchs,’ and the magistrates were directed to watch the 
observance of them by the bishops. None doubted the em- 
peror’s right to enact laws touching the external relations of the 
Church, and even subjects connected with its internal constitu- 
tion ;* but it was more suspicious when the emperors began 


14 The law issued to the patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius, of which merely the con- 
tents are given in the Constitutt. Imper. appended to the Codex Justin. is found complete 
in Jo. Leunclavii Juris Graeco Romani (tomi ii. Francof. 1596. fol.), i. 73, and in Voélli 
et Justelli Biblioth. juris can. ii. 1361: The offenses (2yxA#uaTa) of clergymen are to be 
jadged by the bishop xar@ Tove Oeiove kavévac. ei dé ye vopicot cgodpotépacg éxete- 
Aetoewc Gkiov xabiordvat Tov Kpivduevov, THVviKadTa Tov ToLodTOV—TOd TeEpLKELévo” 
Keletouev youvotobat cxnmaroc, Kal Toi¢g TOAITLKOI¢ Epyovot mapadidécOa, tac TIC 
juetépote Olwplouévac vouowe Tyswpiag drocynoduevov. 

1 For example, Nov. 6, epilogus: Sanctissimi igitur Patriarchae cujusque diocesis haec 
in sanctissimis Ecclesiis sub se constitutis proponant, et Dei amantissimis Metropolitanis 
quae a nobis sancita sunt nota faciant. Hi vero ipsi in sanctissima Ecclesia metroplitana 
haec rursus proponant, et Episcopis, qui sub ipsis sunt, manifesta faciant. Quilibet vero 
illoram in Ecclesia sua haec proponat, ut nemo in nostra sit republica, qui ea—ignoret. 
¥. A. Biener’s Gesch. der Novyellen Justinian’s. Berlin. 1824. 8. 31, f. comp. 8. 25, ss. 

2 See § 115, note 5. 

3 Biener, 1. c. S. 157, ss. 161, ss. Thus Justinian, Nov. 123, c. 3, where he fixes the 
amount to be given by the bishops pro inthronisticis, uses the expression: KeAetouev 
Toivuy Tove ev pakaplwTatovg apyientoxérove Kai maTpiapyac, TovTéctt Tig TpeC- 
3urépac ‘Péyne, nat Kwvoravtiwouréiews, kai ’AAezavdpeiac, kal OeovrdAewc, Kai 
"lepocoAtuwv. When the Emperor Maurice had made a law, ut quisquis publicis ad- 
ministrationibus fuerit implicatus, ei neque ad ecclesiasticum officium venire, neque in 
monasterium converti liceat: Gregory the Great, lib: iii. Ep. 65, ad Mauriciygm Aug. 
remonstrated against the second part of the prohibition. Ex. gr. Ego vero haec Dominis 
meis loquens, quid sum nisi pulvis et vermis? Sed tamen quia contra auctorem omnium 
Deum hanc intendere constitutionem sentio, Dominis tacere non possum.—Ad haec ecce 
per me servum ultimum suum et vestrum respondebit Christus dicens: Ego te de notario 
comitem excubitoram, de comite excubitorum, Caesarem, de Caesare Imperatorem, nec 
solum hoc, sed etiam patrem Imperatorum feci. Sacerdotes meos tuae manui commisi, 
‘et tu a meo servitio milites tuos subtrahis? Responde, rogo, piissime Domine, servo tuo, 
quid venienti et haec dicenti responsurus es in judicio Domino tuo ?—Ego quidem jussioni 
subjectus eandem legem per diversas terrarum partes transmitti feci: et quia lex ipsa 


CHAP. III.—HIERARCHY. § 117. HISTORY OF THE PATRIARCHS. 495 


now to decide questions of faith by edicts, ‘and when Synods 
were assembled almost entirely for the purpose of adopting im- 
perial articles of faith. The Greek bishops became more and 
more accustomed to sacrifice their conviction to circumstances ;‘ 
but the bishops of Italy, favored by the political condition of 
their ‘country, were able for the most part to assert a firmer 
position. 


§ 117. 


HISTORY OF THE PATRIARCHS. 


Ever since the beginning of the Monophysite controversy in 
the East, the sees of Alexandria and Antioch had become so 
weak that the patriarchs of Constantinople only, upheld by the 
privileges granted them at the council of Chalcedon,’ were able 
to vie with the Roman patriarchs.” But while the former were 
dependent on imperial caprice, and constantly harassed by the 
Greek spirit of controversy, the latter enjoyed the most perfect 
freedom in ecclesiastical things, and the advantage of standing 
at the head of the west, which was less inclined to controver- 
sies about faith, and therefore more united.* After the extine- 
tion of the West Roman empire (476), by which, however, 
they had never been molested, but often furthered,‘ the Roman 


omnipotenti Deo minime concordat, ecce per suggestionis meae paginam serenissimis 
Dominis nuntiavi.: Utrobique ergo quae debui exsolvi, qui et Bra pendtcel obedientiam 
praebui, et pro Deo quod sensi minime tacui. 

. * Epistola Legatis Francorum, qui Constantinopolim proficiscebantur, ab Italiae clericis 
directa, A.D. 551, ap. Mansi, ix. p. 153: Sunt graeci Episcopi habentes divites et opulentas 
ecclesias, et non patiuntur duos menses a rerum écclesiasticaruam dominationé suspendi: 
pro qua re secundum tempus, ef secundum voluntatem principum, quidquid ab eis quaesi- 

tum fuerit, sine altercatione consentiunt. Comp. § 92, notes 1 and 2. 

_ «1 The Monophysite party which predominated under Basiliscus, suspended these privi- 
leges in part, Evagrius, iii. 6: (Timotheus Aelurus) drodidwor TH "Edeciwy Kai To maTpt- 
apxiKov ixarov, Step abriv ddetAev 7 év Xadnnddve obvodog : but by the law Cod. Justin. 
i. ii. 16 (by Zeno, not, as the title has it, by Leo), the decrees of Chalcedon were revived, 
to be in.force ever after. 

2 Order of the Roman bishops: Leo I. the Great f 461, Hilary t 468, Simplicius t 483, 
Felix If. ¢ 492, Gelasius I. t 496, Anastasius II. t 498, Symmachus t 514, Hormisdas tf 523, 
John I. ¢ 526; Felix III. ¢ 530, Boniface II. t 532, John II. t 535, Agapetus I. t 536, Silverius 
banished by Belisarius 537, Vigilius ¢ 555, Pelagius I. t 560, John ITI. t 573, Benedict I. 
t 578, Pelagius IL. t 590, Gregory I. the Great t 604, Sabinianus t 606, Boniface III. t 607, 
Boniface IV. t 615, Deusdedit t 618, Boniface V. t 625. 

3 See vol. i. pp. 883, 384, * See above, § 94, notes 12 and 66. 


496 SECOND PERIOD—DIV. IL.—A.D. 451-622. 


bishops became subject to German princes, who left them at 
perfect liberty to manage all affairs within the Church according * 
to their pleasure. This was particularly the case with Theo- 
derich, king of the Arian Ostrogoths (493-526),° to whom the 
schism between Rome and Constantinople gave sufficient security 
from all dangerous combinations of the Catholic hierarchy. And 
when, on the death of Bishop Anastasius, there was a contested 
election between Symmachus and Laurentius (498),° he waited 
till required by both parties to decide,’ and then quietly allowed 
a Roman synod under Symmachus to declare all interference 
of the laity in the affairs of the Roman Church entirely inad- 
missible.°*. 


5 On the course pursued by the Ostrogoth kings toward the church, see G. Sartorius 
Versuch tiber die Regierung der Ostgothen wahrend ihrer Herrschaft in Italien. Ham- 
burg. 1811. S. 124, ss. 306, ss. J. C. F. Manso Gesch. des ostgoth. Reichs in Italien. 
Breslau. 1824. S. 141, ss. Theoderich says (Cassiodori Variarum, lib. ii. Ep. 27): Re- 
ligionem imperare non possumus: quia nemo cogitur, ut credat invitus. King Theodahat 
to the emperor Justinian (ibid. x. Ep. 26): Cum divinitas diversas patiatur religiones 
esse, nos unam non audemus imponere. Retinemus enim legisse nos, voluntarie sacrifi- 
candum esse Domino, non cujusquam cogentis imperio. Quod qui aliter facere tentaverit, 
evidenter caelestibus jussionibus obviavit. 

6 According to Theodorus Lector, lib. ii. (ed. Vales. Amstelod. p. 560) Laurentius was 
chosen by an imperial party on condition of subscribing the Henoticon. Cf. Arastasii Lib. 
pontificalis, c. 52, in vita Symmachi. 

7 Anastasii Lib. pontificalis, c. 52, in vita Symmachi: Et facta contentione hoc con- 
stituerunt partes, ut ambo ad Ravennam pergerent ad judicium Regis Theodorici. Qui 
dum ambo introissent in Ravennam, hoc judicium aequitatis invenerunt, ut qui primo 
ordinatus fuisset, vel ubi pars maxima cognosceretur, ipse sederet in sede apostolica. 
Quod tandem aequitas in Symmacho invenit. 

8 Synodus Romana iii. sab Symmacho (in the collections cited erroneously as the Syn. 
Rom. iv. s. palmaris, see Pagi ad ann. 502 nym. 3, ss.) ap. Mansi, viii. 266, ss. The protocol 
of a synod held after the death of Pope Simplicius wag here read, and the decrees passed 
at it declared nugatory as proceeding from a layman."*This protocol is given in the Acta 
of the Synod referred to, and runs thus: Cum in unum apud b. Petrum Apostolum resedis- 
sent, sublimis et eminentissimus vir, praefectus praetorio atque patricius, agens etiam 
vices praecellentissimi regis Odoacris, Basilius dixit: Quamquam studii nostri et religionis 
intersit, ut in episcopatus electione concordia principaliter servetur ecclesiae, ne per occa- 
sionem seditionis status civitatis vocetur in dubium : tamen admonitione beatissimi Papae 
nostri Simplicii, quam ante oculos semper habere debemus, hoc nobis meministis sub 
obtestatione fuisse mandatum, ut propter illum strepitum, et venerabilis ecclesiae detri- 
mentum, si eum de hac luce transire contigerit, non sine nostra consultatione cujuslibet 
celebretur electio. Nam et cum quid confusionis atque dispendii venerabilis ecclesia 
sustineret, miramur praetermissis nobis quidquam fuisse tentatum, cum etiam sacerdote 
nostro superstite nihil sine nobis debuisset assumi. Quare si amplitudini vestrae vei 
sanctitati placet, incolumia omnia, quae ad futuri antistitis electionem respiciunt, religiosa 
honoratione servemus, hanc legem specialiter praeferentes, quam nobis haeredibusque 
nostris christianae mentis devotione sancimus: Ne unquam praedium, seu rusticum-seu 
urbanum, vel ornamenta aut ministeria ecclesiaruam—ab eo qui nunc antistes sub electione 
communi fuerit ordinandus, et illis qui faturis saeculis sequentur, quocumaue titulo atque 
commento alienentur. Si quis vero aliquid eorum alienare voluerit, inefficax atque irritam 


CHAP. Ill—HIERARCHY. 4117. HISTORY OF THE PATRIARCHS. 497 


Thus the Roman bishops were so far from being hindered 
by any superior power, that it proved an advantageous circum- 
stance to them in the eyes of their new civil rulers, that they 
steadfastly resisted innovations of faith made in Constantinople, 
till they gained a new victory over the changeable Greeks 
under the Emperor Justin. The natural consequence of this 
was, that while the patriarchs of Constantinople were constantly 
sinking in ecclesiastical esteem on account of their vacillation 
in these controversies, the bishops of Rome still maintained 
their ancient reputation of being the defenders of oppressed 
orthodoxy.® 

Under these favorable circumstances, the ecclesiastical preten- 
sions of the Roman bishops, who now formed the only center of - 
Catholic Christendom in the west, in opposition to the Arian 
conquerors, rose high, without hindrance. They asserted that 
not only did the highest ecclesiastical authority in the west 
belong to them, but also superintendence of orthodoxy and 
maintenance of ecclesiastical laws throughout the whole Church. 
These claims they sometimes founded on imperial edicts’? and 
deerees of synods;*'' but for the most part on the peculiar rights 


judicetur; sitque facienti vel consentienti, accipientique anathema, etc. At this enactment 
the following voices were now raised at the synod under Symmachus: Perpendat s. Sy- 
nodus, uti praetermissis personis religiosis, quibus maxime cura est de tanto pontifice, 
electionem laici in suam redegerint potestatem, quod contra canones esse manifestum est. 
—Scriptura evidentissimis documentis constat invalida. Primum quod contra patrum regu- 
las a laicis, quamvis religiosis, quibus nulla de ecclesiasticis facultatibus aliquid disponendi 
legitur unquam attributa facultas, facta videtur. Deinde quod nullius praesulis apostolicae 
sedis subscriptione firmata docetur. The arrangement was declared null, and, on the con- 
trary, another of similar import was passed by the ofa to secure ecclesiastical property, 

® Cod. Just. i. i..7, below, note 23. 

10 Hilarii P. Epist. xi. (Mansi, viii. 939): Fratri enim nostro Leontio nihil constituti a 
sanctae memoriae decessore meo juris potuit abrogari :—quia Christianorum quoque prin- 
cipum lege decretum est, ut quidquid ecclesiis earumque rectoribus—apostolicae sedis 
antistes suo pronunciasset examine, veneranter accipi tenaciterque servari, cum suis 
plebibus caritas vestra cognosceret: nec unquam possent convelli, quae et sacerdotali 
ecclesiastica praeceptione fulcirentur et regia. 

11 Epist. synod. Rom. ad Clericos et Monachos Orient. ap. 485 (Mansi, vii. 1140): 
Quotiens intra Italiam propter ecclesiasticas causas, praecipue fidei, colliguntur domini 
sacerdotes, consuetudo retinetur, ut successor praesulum sedis apostolicae ex persona 
cunctorum totius Italiae sacerdotum juxta solicitudinem sibi ecclesiaram omnium com: 
petentem cuncta constituat, qui caput est omnium; Domino ad b. Petrum dicente: Tu es 
Petrus ete. Quam vocem sequentes cccxviii. sancti patres apud Nicaeam congregati 
confirmationem rerum atque auctoritatem sanctae Romanae ecclesiae detulerunt (comp. 
above, § 94, notes 28, 35, 60): quam utramque usque ad aetatem nostram successiones 
omnes, Christi gratia praestante, custodiunt. Gelasii Ep. iv. ad Faustum (Mansi, viii. 19): 
Quantum ad religionem pertinet, nonnisi apostolicae sedi juxta canones debetur summa 
judicii totius. Ejusd. Ep. xiii. ad Episc. Dardaniae (Mansi, viii. 54): Non reticemus 


VoL. L—o2 


498 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. II.—A.D. 451-622. 


conferred on Peter by the Lord.* After the synodus palma- 
ris, called by Theoderich to examine the charges newly raised 
by the Laurentian party against Symmachus (503), had acquit- 
ted him without examination, in view of the circumstances ;% 


autem, quod cuncta per mundum noyit ecclesia, quoniam quorumlibet sententiis ligata 
pontificum, sedes b. Petri Apostoli jus habeat resolyendi, utpote quod de omni ecclesia 
fas habeat judicandi, neque cuiquam de ejus liceat judicare judicio, siquidem ad illam 
de qualibet mundi parte canones appellari voluerint, ab illa autem nemo sit appellare . 
permissus. 

12 Gelasii decretum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis (Mansi, viii. 157; comp. on 
it § 114, note 2): Quamvis universae per orbem catholicae diffusae ecclesiae unus thalamus 
Christi sit, sancta tamen Romana ecclesia nullis synodicis constitutis caeteris ecclesiis 
praelata est, sed evangelica voce Domini et Salvatoris nostri primatum obtinuit: Tua es 
Petrus, etc. Cui data est etiam societas b. Pauli Apostoli,—qui non diverso, sicut haeretici 
garriunt, sed uno tempore, uno eodemque die gloriosa morte cum Petro in urbe Roma 
sub Caesare Nerone agonizans, coronatus est. Et pariter supradictam s. Romanam 
ecclesiam Christo domino consecrarunt, aliisque omnibus in universo mundo sua prae- 
sentia atque venerando triumpho praetulerunt. (Gregorii M. lib. iv. in 1 Reg. v. ed. 
nuit totius ecclesiae principatum. Comp. above, § 94, note 37.) 

13 Syn. Rom. iv. sub Symmacho s. palmaris, in the collections falsely cited as Syn. iii. 
See Pagi ad ann. 503, num.2,ss. C. L. Nitzschii Disp. de Synodo palmari. Viteberg. 
1775 (reprinted in Pottii Sylloge commentt. theoll. iv. 67)—The Acts ap. Mansi, viii. 247. 
After Symmachus had been in danger of his life at the synod, from his enemies, he declared 
(relatio Episcopp. ad Regem, p. 256): Primum ad conventum vestrum—sine aliqua dubi- 
tatione properavi, et privilegia mea voluntati regiae submisi, et auctoritatem synodi dedi: 
sicut habet ecclesiastica disciplina, restaurationem ecclesiarum regulariter poposci: sed 
nullus mihi a nobis effectus est. Deinde cum venirem cum clero meo, crudeliter mactatus 
sum. Ulterius me vestro examini non committo: in potestate Dei est, et domini regis, 
quid de me deliberet ordinare. (Compare above, § 92, note 15.) The synod having re- 
ported this to the king, he answered (I. c. p. 257): Miramur denuo fuisse consultum: cum 
si nos de praesenti ante voluissemus judicare negotio, habito cum proceribus nostris de 
inquirenda veritate tractatu, Deo auspice, potuissemus inyenire justitiam, quae nec prae- 
senti saeculo, nec futurae forsitan displicere potuisset aetati—Nunc vero eadem, quae 
dudum, praesentibus intimamus oraculis—Sive discussa, sive indiscussa causa, proferte 
sententiam, de quae estis rationem divino judicio reddituri : dummodo, sicuti saepe dixi- 
mus, haec deliberatio vestra provideat, ut pax Senatui populoque Romano, submota omni 
confusione, reddatur. For the further proceedings of the synod see their protocol, p. 250: 
Dei mandata complentes Italiae suum dedimus rectorem, agnoscentes nullum nobis 
laborem alium remansisse, nisi ut dissidentes cum humilitate propositi nostri ad con- 
cordiam hortaremur. They proceed to consider quanta inconvenienter et praejudicial- 
iter in hujus negotii principio contigissent:—maxime cum illa quae praemisimus inter 
alia de auctoritate sedis obstarent: quia quod possessor ejus quondam b. Petrus meruit, 
in nobilitatem possessionis accessit :—maxime cum omnem paene plebem cernamus ejus 
communioni indissociabiliter adhaesisse; and therefore concluded: Ut Symmachus Papa 
sedis apostolicae praesul, ab hujusmodi propositionibus impetitus, quantum ad homines 
respicit (quia totum causis obsistentibus superius designatis constat arbitrio divino fuisse 
dimissum), sit immunis et liber—lUnde secundum principalia praecepta, quae nostrae hoc 
tribuunt potestati, ei, quidquid ecclesiastici intra sacram urbem Romam vel foris juris est, 
reformamus totamque causam Dei judicio reservantes, ete. Just as before also the Conc. 
Cirtense, A.D. 305 (see Augustin. contra Cresonium, iii. 27), put down the accusation against 
several bishops of their being Traditores, with the asseveration: habent Deum, cui reddant 
rationem. 


CHAP. IlI].—HIBRARCHY. § 117. HISTORY OF THE PATRIARCHS. 499 


the apologist of this synod, Ennodius, bishop of Pavia (511), 
first gave utterance to the assertion, that the bishop of Rome is 
subject to no earthly judge.’ Not long after an attempt was 
made to give a historical basis to this principle by supposititious 
Gesta (acts) of former popes ;'’ and other falsifications of older 
documents in favor of the Roman see now appeared in like 
manner.’® Still the Roman bishops (or as they were already 
called in Italy, by way of distinction, Papa)" did not yet de- 
mand any other kind of honor than was paid to the other 
apostolic sees,‘* acknowledging that they were subject to gen- 


14 Magni Felicis Ennodii (Opp. ed. J. Sirmond. Paris. 1611, recusa in Gallandii Bibl. 
PP. xi. 47) libellus apologeticus pro Synodo iv. Romana (Mansi, viii. 274): Non nos b. 
Petrum, sicut dicitis, a Domino cum sedis privilegiis, vel successores ejus, peccandi judi- 
camus licentiam suscepisse. Ile perennem meritorum dotem cum haereditate innocentiae 
misit ad posteros: quod illi cencessum est pro actuum luce, ad illos pertinet, quos par con- 
versationis splendor illuminat. Quis enim sanctum esse dubitet, qaem apex tantae digni- 
tatis attollit? in quo si desint bona acquisita per meritum, sufficiunt quae a loci decessore 
praestantur: aut enim claros ad haec fastigia erigit, aut qui eriguntur illustrat.. Prae- 
noscit enim, quid Ecclesiarum fundamento sit habile, super quem ipsa moles innititur. 
P. 284: Aliorum forte hominum causas Deus voluerit per homines terminare: sedis istius 
presulem suo, sine quaestione, reservavit arbitrio, in direct contradiction to the Epist. 
Rom. Conc. A.D. 378, above, § 92, note 15. 

18 Namely Conc. Sinuessanum de Marcellini P. condemnatione (quod thurificasset) pre- 
tended to be held A.p. 303. (Mansi, i. 1249, ss. The bishops say to him: Tu eris judex: 
ex te enim damnaberis, et ex te justificaberis, tamen in nostra praesentia.—Prima sedes 
- non judicabitur a quoquam): Constitutio Silvestri Episc. urbis Romae et. Domini Constan- 
tini Aug. in Concil. Rom. pretended to be in 324 (Mansi, ii. 615, ss. Cap. 20: Nemo enim 
jadicabit primam sedem, quoniam omnes sedes a prima sede justitiam desiderant tempe- 
rari. Neque ab Augusto, neque ab omni clero, neque a regibus, neque a populo judex 
judicabitur): Synodi Rom. (alleged to be held 4.p. 433) acta de causa Sixti III. stupro ac- 
cusati, et de Polychronii Hieroselym. accusatione (Mansi, v.1161). Comp. P. Coustant. 
Diss. de antiquis canonum collectionibus, § 97-99 (in Gallandii de Vetustis canonum collec- 
tionibus dissertationum sylloge, i. 93). 

6 Thus the passage in Cyprian’s lib. de unit. eecl. (see Div. I. § 68, note 10) appears 
already corrupted in Pelagii II. Ep. vi. ad Epise. Istriae (Mansi, ix. 898). 

17 Thus, for instance, as early as in the councils held under Symmachus (see above, notes 
8 and 13) and in Ennodius (see note 14. Sirmond ad Ennod. lib. iv. Ep. 1): In the ether 
regions of the west, however, the title Papa continued for a long time to be a name of 
honor applied to every. bishop (Walafrid Strabo, about 840, de Rebus eccl. c. 7, in Hittorp’s 
Collection, p. 395: Pabst a Papa, quod cujusdam paternitatis nomen est, et Clericorum 
congruit dignitati) till Gregory VI. forbade it, a.p. 1075. Comp. Jo. Diecmann dé vocis 
Papae aetatibus diss. ii. Viteberg. 1671.4. In the east Iléma¢ was especially the title 
of the patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria.—Just so in Italy the see of Rome was especially 
Sedes apostolica; in other countries of the west every episcopal see was so styled; cf. 
Gregorii Tur. Hist. Franc. iv. 26: Presbyter—Regis praesentiam adiit et haec effatus est: 
Salve, Rex gloriose, Sedes enim apostolica eminentiae tuae salutem mittit uberrimam. 
Cui ille, numquid, ait, Romanam adisti urbem, ut Papae illius nobis salutem deferas? 
Pater, inquit Presbyter, tuus Leontius (Ep. Burdegalensis) cum provincialibus suis salutem 
tibi mittit. ; 

18 Pelagius I. ad Valerianum (Mansi, ix. 732) : Quotiens aliqua de universali synodo ali- 
qaibus dubitatio nascitur, ad recipiendam de eo quod non intelligunt rationem,—ad apos- 


500 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 451-622. 


eral councils,?® and that the bishops were bound by duty to 
hear them only in case of delinquency. In other respects, they 
admitted that these bishops were equal to them in dignity.” 


tolicas sedes pro recipienda ratione conveniant.-Quisquis ergo ab apostolicis divisus est 
sedibus, in schismate eum esse non dubium est. Comp. above, § 94, note 5. Gregorii M. 
lib. vii. Ep. 40, ad Eulogium Epise. Alexandr. : Suavissima nrihi Sanctitas vestra multa 
in epistolis suis de S. Petri Apostolorum principis cathedra locuta est, dicens, quod ipse in 
ea nunc usque in suis successoribus sedeat.—Cuncta quae dicta sunt in eo libenter accepi, 
quod ille mihi de Petri cathedra locutus est, qui Petri cathedram tenet. Et cum me spe- 
cialis honor nullo modo delectet, valde tamen laetatus sum, quia vos, sanctissimi, quod 
mihi impendistis, vobismetipsis dedistis Cum multi sint Apostoli, pro ipso tamen princi- 
patu solo Apostolorum principis sedes in auctoritate convaluit, quae in tribus locis unius 
est. Ipse enim sublimavit sedem, in qua etiam quiescere, et presentem vitam finire dig- 
natus est (Rome); ipse decoravit sedem, in qua Evangelistam discipulum misit (Alexan- 
dria); ipse firmavit sedem, in qua septem annis, quamvis discessurus, sedit (Antioch). 
Cum ergo unius atque una sit sedes, cui ex auctoritate divina tres nunc Episcopi praesi- 
dent quidquid ego de vobis boni audio, hoe mihi imputo. Si quid de me boni creditis, hoc 
vestris meritis imputate, quia in illo unum sumus, qui ait: Ut omnes unum sint, etc. (Jo- 
Xvii. 21). Of. Wéggers de Gregorio.M. ejusque placitis anthropologicis comm. ii. Rostoch. 
1838. 4. p.29. The flattery of Eulogius may be explained by his straitened condition, 
which Gregory relieved even by presents (cf. lib. vi- Ep. 60; vii. 40; viii. 29). Isidorus. 
Hisp. Etymol. vii. 12 (in Gratiani Decreto, dist. xxi. c. 1): Ordo Episcoporam quadripar- 
titus est, id est in Patriarchis, Archiepiscopis, Metropolitanis atque Episcopis. Patriarcha 
graeca lingua summus patrum interpretatur, quia primum, i. e. apostolicum retinet locum : 
et ideo quia summo honore fungitur, tali nomine censetur, sicut Romanus, Antiochenus et 
Alexandrinus. Here, therefore, the pope still stands in the same rank completely with 
the other patriarchs. 

19 Gelasius Ep. xiii. (Mansi, viii. 51): Confidimus, quod nullas jam veraciter Christianus 
ignoret, uniuscujusque synodi constitutum, quod universalis ecclesiae probavit assensus, 
non aliquam magis exsequi sedem prae caeteris oportere, quam primam, quae et unam- 
quamque synodum sua auctoritate confirmat, et continuata moderatione custodit, pro suo 
scilicet principatu, quem b. Petrus apostolus domini voce perceptum, ecelesia nihilominus 
subsequente, et tenuit semper et retinet. 

20 Gregorii M. lib. ix. Epist. 59, ad Joh. Episc. Syracus.: Si qua culpa in Episcopis in- 
venitur, nescio quis ei (Sedi apostolicae) subjectus non sit: cum vero culpa non exigit, 
omnes secundum rationem humilitatis aequales sunt. Lib. xi. Ep. 37, ad Romanum de- 
fensorem: Pervenit ad nos, quod si quis contra clericos quoslibet causam habeat, despectis 
eorum Episcopis, eosdem clericos in tuo facias judicio exhiberi. Quod si ita est, quia 
valde constat esse incongruum, hac tibi auctoritate praecipimus, ut hoc denuo facere non 
praesumas.—Nam si sua unicuique Episcopo jurisdictio non servatur, quid aliud agitur, 
nisi ut per nos, per quos ecclesiasticus custodiri debuit ordo, confundatar? (Lib. ii. Ep. 52: 
Mihi injuriam facio, si fratram meorum jura perturbo).—Lib. viii. Ep. 30, ad Eulogiunr 
Episc.Alexandr.: Indicare quoque vestra Beatitudo studuit, jam se quibusdam (the patri- 
arch of Constantinople) non scribere superba vocabula, quae ex vanitatis radice prodierunt, 
et mihi loquitur, dicens: sicut jussistis. Quod verbum jussionis peto a meo auditu re- 
movere, quia scio, qui sum, qui estis. Loco enim mihi fratres estis, moribus patres.. Non 
ergo jussi, sed quae utilia visa sunt, indicare.curavi. Non tamen invenio vestram Beati: 
tudinem hoc ipsum, quod memoriae vestrae intuli, perfecte retinere voluisse. Nam dixi, 
nec mihi vos, nec cuiquam alteri tale aliquid scribere debere: et ecce in praefatione 
epistolae, quam ad me ipsum qui prohibui direxistis, superbae appellationis verbum, uni- 
versalem me Papam dicentes, imprimere curastis. Quod peto dulcissima mihi Sanctitas 
vestra ultra non faciat, quia vobis subtrahitur, quod alteri plus quam ratio exigit praebetur. 
—Nec honorem esse deputo, in quo fratres meos honorem suum perdere cognosco.—Si 
enim uniyersalem me Papam vestra Sanetitas dicit, negat se hoc esse, quod me fatetur 


CHAP. II].—_HIERARCHY. § 117. HISTORY OF THE PATRIARCHS. 501 


After ecclesiastical peace had been restored between Rome and 

- Constantinople, the kings of the Ostrogoths became suspicious 
of their Catholic subjects generally, and, in particular, of the 
Romish ‘bishops, who still had unbroken communication with 
Constantinople. John Z., indeed, in his capacity of regal em- 
bassador, procured the restoration of their Churches to the Ari- 
, ans in the Greek Church; yet he was obliged to end his life 
in prison.” The kings maintained a strict oversight of the 
choice of the Catholic bishops, reserving to themselves the con- 
firmation, or absolute appointment of them.”” . Yet even now the 
Gothic rule was not so dangerous to the papacy as the Byzan- 
tine, which latter began after the conquest of Italy (553-554). 
It is true that Justinian honored the Roman see,”* but he also 
distinguished the Constantinopolitan with no less favor ;** and 


aniversum. Sed absit hoc. Recedant verba, quae vanitatem inflant et caritatem vul- 
nerant. 

21 Anastasii lib. pontific. c. 54, ia vita Joannis. Historia miscella, lib. 15 (in Muratori 
Scriptt. Ital. i. 103). Manso Gesch. d. ostgoth. Reiches in Italien, S. 163, ss. 

22 Thus Theoderich appointed the Roman bishop, Felix III. Cassiodori Variarum, lib. 
viii. Ep. 15. Comp. Sartorius Vers. iiber die Regierung der Ostgothen in Italien, 8. 138, 
ss. 308, s.—Athalarich’s edict addressed to John II. against bribery at the election of popes 
and bishops, a.D. 533. ‘Cassiod. Variar. ix. Ep. 15, with a commentary ap. Manso, 1. c. p. 
416, ff. 

.*3 Justinian, a.D. 533, to the patriarch of Constantineple. Cod. Justin. i.i.7: Odre yap 
Gveyoucba ti tTév eic éxxAnovactixny dpdvTwy Katdotaaly, uy Kal TH abTod (Tob Tara 
rij¢ mpecBurépacg ‘Poéuye nal natpidpyov) dvagépecbar waxaptoryti, Ge Keoadgq oton 
TavToy Toy dotwratwv Tod Geod lepéwv, Kai émerdy, dadKic, év_tobToe Toi¢ wépecw 
cipetixol dvedtnoay, tH yvaouy Kai épbq Kpicer Tod éxeivov ceBacuiov Opdvov Katno- 
ynOncav. Ibid. 1.8, Justinianus ad Joannem II. P.: Nec enim patimur quicquam, quod ad 
Ecclesiarum stetam pertinet, qaamvis manifestum et indubitatum sit, quod movetur, ut non 
etiam vestree innotescat sanctitati, qaae caput est omnium sanctarum Ecclesiarum. Per 
omnia enim (ut dictum est) properamus, honorem et auctoritatem crescere vestrae sedis. 

24 Cod. Justin. i. ii. 25: ‘H év KwvotavtivovréAet éxxAncia macév tTév GAd,wv -éoti 
«xedaaf#. On the other hand, the right of the highest ecclesiastical court, which was con- 
veyed to the patriarch of Constantinople at Chalcedon (comp. above, § 93, note 15), if 
indeed it ever extended beyond the dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, appears to have 
fallen into oblivion. The right of appeal is thus fixed by Justinian Cod. i. iv. 29 : Bishop— 

- Metropolitan and his Provincial synod—Patriarch. From the decision of the last, as from 
that of the Praetorian prefect, there could be no appeal (Cod. Just. vii. xii. 19). No com- 
plaint is to be brought before the patriarch first, xAjv ei wy thy aitiaciv tic éni TobTw 

Wein, iG Gre TapavengOjvar Thy IrdOcaw TH THE YOpac OeogiAeoTdTw éExicKér@* THYI- 
kadra yap Gdeva pév éorat THY aitiacw drotifecbat Kai apd Toic Oeogipeotarouc 
TarTpiapyate, i.e., unless accompanied with the petition that the matter shall be delegated 
to the bishop of the province. For in that case it shall be allowed to bring the complaint 
before the patriarch. Then, § 2: Ei pévtec napareudOscionce tic dmobécewcg Tapa tod 
Geogiiecrazou Tatpidpyov 7 Tie TOV GsogtAeccTaTwV unTpOTOALTOY, 7 GAAw TOY Geo- 
Hiheatdtov éxiokbrar, évexbein Wigoc, Kai wy otepxGein. mapa Garépov mépovc, éxxAH- 
v6¢ Te yévnTat* THvikadra éni Tov dpyreparixdy Opdvov (Vers. lat. ad Archiepiscopalem 
anc sedem) gépecbar tHv Focowv, KiKeioe KaTad 76 wéypt viv Kpatody éFerdlecbat, i.c., 


502 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. H.—A.D. 451-622. _ 


endeavored in the end to convert both merely into instruments 
to enable him to rule both in church and state. Two of 
his creatures, Vigilius and Pelagius I., successively filled the 
Roman see; and in the controversy concerning the three 
chapters it soon became apparent how hazardous to Rome this 
dependence on Byzantium was. For a long time in the 
Western Church the rejection of the Three Chapters was con- 
sidered a violation of orthodoxy ; and on this account the bishops * 
of the diocese of Italy broke off communion with Rome. The 
bishops of Milan and Ravenna were indeed reconciled ; when, 
oppressed by the Arian Lombards, they were compelled to set 
greater value on communion with the Catholic Church (570— 
580); but the archbishop of Agutleia (who, since the incursions 
of the Lombards into Italy (568), resided on the island Grado 
and the Istrian bishops were more obstinate, and did not renew 
their fellowship with Rome till the year 698.*° 

But even this dangerous period of dependence on Byzantium 
ceased for Rome, after the incursion of the Lombards into Italy 
(568). From that time the Greek dominions in this country 
were confined to the exarchate of Ravenna, the Duchy of Rome 
and Naples, the cities on the coast of Liguria, and the extreme 
provinces of Lower Italy. Continually threatened by the 
Lombards, and often forsaken by the Greek emperors, these 
districts were frequently obliged to protect themselves. At the 
head of all measures for defense appeared the popes, as the 
richest possessors,”® whose own interest it was to avert the rule 


if the complaint is delegated by the patriarch to a metropolitan or another bishop, and a 
sentence passed which the one party is dissatisfied with, and an appeal is made; then 
the appeal shall be to the archbishop (consequently with the omission of some intermediate 
courts, according to the rule Cod. Just. vii. Ixii. 32, § 3: Eorum sententiis appellatione 
suspensis, qui ex delegatione cognoscunt, necesse est eos aestimare—qui causas delegave- 
rint judicandas). ‘O dpytepatixdc Opévoc, is every delegating patriarch, not exclusively 
(as has been assumed after the Latin translation of Anton. Augustinus, which in this law 
is entirely false) the patriarch of Constantinople. Even Ziegler Geschich. der kirchl. 
Verfassungsformen, S. 232, ss. has entirely misunderstood this law. 

25 J. F. B. M. de Rubeis de Schismate eccl. Aquilejensis diss. hist. Venet. 1732. 8. Re- 
published in an enlarged form in ejusd. monimenta eccl. Aquilejensis. 1740. fol. Walch’s 
Ketzerhigt. viii. 331. N.C. Kist de Kerk en het Patriarchaat van Aquileja in the Archief 
voor kerkelijke Geschiedenis, i. 118. 

28 As the emperors called their fortunes patrimonium (namely patrimonium privatum s. 
dominicum. their private property, and patrim. sacratum s. divinae domus, their domains. 
See Gutherms de offic. dom. Aug. lib. iii. c. 25. Pancirolius ad notit. dignatatum Imp. 
Orient. c. 87), so the churches called their possessions patrimonia of their saints. That of 
the Roman church was therefore patrimonium 8. Petri: at the same time also the single 


CHAP. II.—HIERARCHY. §117. HISTORY OF THE PATRIARCHS. 503 


of those Arian barbarians. 'Thus they not only gained great 
political influence in Grecian Italy,” but also obtained a more 
independent position in ecclesiastical matters in relation to the 
Greek emperors. As citizens, they remained subject to the 
Greek emperors, and their representatives, the exarchs of Ra- 
venna.”® ; 
Toward the end of this period the flame of controversy was 
again kindled between the two first patriarchs of Christendom, 
when John Jejunator began to assume the title of a Patriarcha 


estates which were managed by defensoribus or rectoribus were called patrimonia. Cf. 
Zaccaria diss. de patrimoniis s. Rom. Eccl. in his commentationes de rebus ad hist. atque 
antiquitt. Ecclesiae pertinentibus dissert. latinae (Fulginiae. tomi. ii. 1781. 4.) ii. 68. 
Planck’s Gesch. d. christ]. kirchl. Gesellschaftsverf. i. 629. C.H. Sack de patrimoniis 
Eccl. Rom. cirea finem saeculi vi. in his. Commentationes, quae ad theol. hist. pertinent, 
tres. Bonnae. 1821. 8. p. 25, ss. For an account of the activity of thé Popes in protecting 
Italy, comp. Gregorii M. lib. vy. Ep. 21, ad Constantinam Aug.: Viginti autem jam et septem 
annos ducimus, quod in hac urbe inter Langobardorum gladios vivimus. Quibus quam 
multa hac ab Ecclesia quotidianis diebus erogantur, ut inter eos vivere possimus, sug- 
gerenda non sunt. Sed breviter indico, quia sicut in Ravennae partibus Dominorum 
Pietas apud primum exercitum Italiae saccellarium habet, qui causis supervenientibus 
quotidianas expensas faciat, ita et in hac urbe in causis talibus eorum saccellarius ego 
sum. Et tamen haec Ecclesia, quae uno eodemque tempore clericis, monasteriis, pau- 
peribus, populo, atque insuper Langobardis tam multa indesinenter expendit, ecce adhuc 
ex omnium Ecclesiarum premitur afllictione, quae de hac unius hominis (Johannis Jejunat.) 
superbia muitum gemunt, etsi nihil dicere praesumunt. 

27 Gregorii M. lib. ii. Ep. 31, ad cunctos milites Neapolitanos: Summa militiae laus 
inter alia bona merita haec est, obedientiam sanctae Reipublicae utilitatibus exhibere, 
quodque sibi utiliter.imperatam fuerit, obtemperare: sicut et nunc devotionem vestram 
fecisse didicimus, quae epistolis nostris, quibus magnificum virum Constantium Tribunum 
custodiae civitatis deputavimus praeesse, paruit, et congruam militaris devotionis obe- 
dientiam demonstravit. Unde scriptis vos praesentibus curavimus admonendos, uti 
praedicto viro magnifico Tribuno, sicut et fecistis, omnem debeatis pro serenissimorum 
Dominorum utilitate, vel conservanda civitate obedientiam exhibere, etc. Comp. the 
excerpt from the acts of Honorius I. (625, 638) by Muratori, Antiquitt. Ital. v. 834, from 
Cencii Camerarii lib. de censibus, and published more fully by Zaccaria, 1. c. p. 131, from 
the collect Cann. of Cardinal Deusdedit. Idem in eodem (i. e., Honorius in suo Registro) 
Gaudisso Notario et Anatolio Magistro militum Neapolitanam civitatem regendam com- 
mittit, et qualiter debeat regi, scriptis informat. It does not follow from these passages, 
as Dionysius de Ste Marthe in vita Gregorii, lib. iii. c. 9, no. 6 (Gregg. Opp. iv. 271), and 
Zaccaria, |. c. p. 112, 131, conclude from them that the city of Naples belonged to the 
patrimonium S. Petri; but that the popes who had important possessions there (a patri- 
monium Neapolitanum and Campanum, Zaccaria, p. 111); when the city was hard pressed 
(cf. Gregor. M. lib. ii. Ep. 46, ad Johannem Episc. Ravennae: De Neapolitana vero urbe, 
excellentissimo Exarcho instanter imminente, vobis indicamus, quia Arigis—valde in- | 
sidiatur eidem civitati, in quam si celeriter dux non mittatur, omnino jam inter perditas- 
habetur), and required speedy aid, took the necessary measures instead of the exarch. 
Of. Sack. lc. p. 52. j 

28 Cf. Gregorii M. lib. iii: Ep. 65, above, § 116, note 3. For the official authorities con- 
cerning the relations of the ecclesiastical to the civil power, especially concerning the 
right of the exarchs to confirm the choice of a pope, see the liber diurnus Romanorum 
Pontiff. See on this subject on the following period. 


504 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 451-622. 


universalis, olkovpevixdg (587)."? Even Pelagius II. grew very 
warm respecting it,*® and still more Gregory the Great. 'These 
popes rejected that appellation altogether, as anti-Christian and 
devilish ; without, however, making: the desired impression on 
the Emperor Maurice and the court patriarch.** So much the 
more, therefore, did Gregory thank Providence when Mawrice’s 
murderer Phocas (602) ascended the throne;* and Phocas 


29 At first applied by flatterers to all patriarchs. See § 93, note 20, § 94, note 72. 
Ziegler Gesch. der kirchl. Verfassungsformen, 8. 259. Justinian gives the patriarch of 
Constantinople the title, T@ dytwtdtw Kai pakaplwTéTw apyiertiokéra tHe BactAidoc 
TavTy¢ TWékEwe Kai oikovperiKO waTpladpyy. Cod. i.1, 7. Novell. iii. v. vi. vii. xvi. xlii. 

30 Gregorii M. lib. v. Ep. 18, 43, ix. 68. The letter viii. Pelagii ad universos Episce. 
(Mansi, ix. 900) relative to this point is Pseudo-Isidorian. See Blondelli Pseudo-Isidorus, 
p- 636, ss. 

%1 Gregorii M. lib. v. Ep. 18, ad Johann.—Si ergo ille (Paulus) membra dominici corporis 
certis extra Christum quasi capitibus, et ipsis quidem Apostolis subjici partialiter evitavit 
(1 Cor. i. 12, ss.): tu quid Christo, universalis scilicet Ecclesiae capiti, in extremi judicii 
es dicturus examine, qui cuncta ejus membra‘tibimet conaris universalis appellatione 
supponere? Quis, rogo, in hoc tam perverso vocabulo, nisi ille ad imitandum proponitur, 
qui despectis Angelorum legionibus secum socialiter constitutis, ad culmen conatus est 
singularitatis erumpere, ut et nulli subesse et solus omnibus praeesse videretur? Certe 
Petrus Apostolorum primus, membrum sanctae et universalis Ecclesiae, Paulus, Andreas, 
Johannes, quid aliud quam singularium sunt plebium capita? et tamen sub uno capite 
omnes membra—Numquid non—per venerandum Chalcedonense Concilium hujus apos- 
tolicae sedis Antistites, cui Deo disponente deservio, universales oblato honore vocati 
sunt? (Comp. § 94, note 72.) Sed tamen nullus umquam tali vocabulo appellari voluit, 
nullus sibi hoc temerarium nomen arripuit: ne si sibi in Pontificatus gradu gloriam 
singularitatis arriperet, hanc omnibus fratribus denegasse videretur. Ep. 19, ad Sa- 
binianum Diac. (Apocrisiarium.) Ep. 20, ad Mauricium Aug, Ep. 21, ad Constantinam 
Aug. Ep. 43, ad Eulogium Ep. Alexandr. et Anastasium Antiochenum. Lib. vii. Ep. 4, 
5, and 31, ad Cyriacum Ep. Constant. Ep. 27,’ad Anastas. Antioch. Ep. 33, ad Mauricium 
Aug.: De qua re mihi in suis jussionibus Dominorum Pietas praecipit, dicens, ut per 
appellationem frivoli nominis inter nos scandalum generari non debeat. Sed rogo, ut 
Imperialis Pietas penset, quia alia sunt frivola valde imnoxia, atque alia valde nociva. 
Numquidnam cum se Antichristus veniens Deum dixerit, frivolum valde erit, sed tamen 
nimis perniciosum? Si quantitatem sermonis attendimus, duae sunt syllabae; si vero 
pondus iniquitatis, universa pernicies. Ego autem fidenter dico, quia quisquis se univer- 
salem Sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua Antichristum praecurrit, 
quia superbiendo se caeteris praeponit. Nec dispari superbia ad errorem ducitur, quia 
sicut perversus ille Deus videri vult super omnes homines: ita quisquis iste est, qui solus 
Sacerdos appellari appetit, super reliquos Sacerdotes se extollit: Ep. 34,.ad Eulogium 
Alex. et Anastas. Ant. How earnestly Gregory rejected for himself this title, may be 
seen in lib. viii. Ep. 30, ad Eulogium Ep. Alex. above, note 18. According to Johannes 
Diac. (about 825) in vita Greg. M. ii.1, Gregory may have assumed the title servus ser- 
vorum Dei, to put to shame the patriarch of Constantinople. Hyven Augustine calls him- 
self, Ep. 130 and 217, servus servorum Christi, Fulgentius Ep. 4, servorum Christi famulas. 
Among Gregory the Great’s letters, there are now only three before which he so styles 
himself. But even so late as the eleventh century other bishops too, as well as kings 
and emperors, employed this title. See du Fresne Glossar. ad scriptt. med. et. inf. lat. s. 
Vv. servus. 

32 Comp. the congratulatory letter of Gregory, lib. xiii. Ep. 31, ad Phocam Imp., Ep. 38, 
ad Leontiam. Aug. 


CHAP. II]—HIBRARCHY. § 117. HISTORY OF THE PATRIARCHS. 505 


repaid the pope’s favor by taking his part against the patriarch,** 
though after him that disputed title was constantly used by 
the see of Constantinople. 

At this time the popes also began to bestow the pallium 
(which all bishops in the east received at their consecration) * 
on the most distinguished bishops of the west, for the purpose 
of symbolizing and strengthening. their connection with the 
Church of Rome.*® 


33 The patriaren Cyriacus was an adherent of Maurice (Theophanes, i. 446, 453). Ana- 
stasius de vitis Pontific. c. 67, Bonifacius, iii.: Hic obtinuit apud Phocam Principem, ut 
Sedes apostolica b. Petri Apostoli caput esset omnium ecclesiarum, i. e., Ecclesia Romana, 
quia Ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat. With the 


same words Paulus Warnefridi de Gestis Longob. iv. 37. Doubted by J. M. Lorenz 


Examen decreti Phocae de primatu Rom. Pont. Argent. 1790. Schréckh, xvii. 72. Re- 
markabie is the view of the subject taken by the Ghibelline Gotfridus Viterbiensis (about 
1186), in his Pantheon, p. xvi. (Pistorii Rer. Germ. scriptt. ed. Strave, ii. 289): 

Tertius est Papa Bonifac us ille benignus, 

Qui petit a Phoca munu per secula dignum, 

Ut sedes Petri prima sit ; ille dedit. 

Prima prius fuerat Constantinopolitana ; 

Est modo Romana, meliori dogmate clara. 

34 Even Heraclius, successor of Phocas, in his laws gives again this title to the patriarch 
of Constantinople. See Leunclavii Jus Graeco-Romanum, t. i. p. 73, ss. 

35 See above, § 101, note 1.. Against the opinion almost universally adopted from Pe- 
trus de Marca de conc. Sac. et Imp. lib. vi. c. 6, that the old pallium, a splendid mantle, 
was a part of the imperial dress, and therefore bestowed only by the emperors, or with 
their permission by the patriarchs, see J. G. Pertsch de Origine, usu, et auctoritate, pallii 
archiepiscopalis. Helmst. 1754. 4. p. 56, ss. 

36 The oldest document on the subject is Symmachi P. Ep. ad Theodorum Laureacen- 
sem (Mansi, viii. :p. 228) about 501: Diebus vitae tuae palli usam, quem ad sacerdotalis 
officii decorem et ad ostendendam unanimitatem, quam cum b. Petro Apostolo universum 
gregem dominicarum ovium, quae ei commissae sunt, habere dubium non est, ab apostolica 
sede, sicut decuit, poposcisti, quod utpote ab eisdem Apostolis fundatae ecclesiae majoram 
more libenter indulsimus ad ostendendum te magistrum et archiepiscopum, tuamque sanc- 
tam Laureacensem ecclesiam provinciae Pannoniorum sedem fore metropolitanam. Id- 
circo pallio, quod ex apostolica caritate tibi destinamus, quo uti debeas secundum morem 


ecclesiae tuae, solerter admonemus pariterque volumus, ut intelligas, quia ipse vestitus, . 


quo ad missarum solemnia ornaris, signum praetendit crucis, per quod scito te cum fratri- 
bus debere compati ac mundialibus illecebris in affectu crucifigi, etc. (The formula in the 
liber diurnus, cap. iv. tit. 3, is abbreviated from this epistle.) According to Vigilii P. Ep. 
yii. ad Auxanium Arelatensem (Mansi, ix. p. 42),Symmachus also invested Caesarius, 
bishop of Arles, with the pallium. These investitures became more frequent under 
Gregory the Great, not only of metropolitans, as John of Corinth, Leo of Prima Justinianea, 
Vigilius of Arles, Augustine of Canterbury, but also simple bishops, as of Donus of Mes- 
sina, John of Syracuse, John of Palermo, etc. See Pertsch.1.c. p. 134, ss. Though Vigilius 
P. Ep. vi. ad Auxanium Arelatensem (Mansi, ix. p. 40), writes: De his vero, quae Caritas 
vestra tam de usu pallii, quam de aliis sibi a nobis petiit debere concedi, libenti hoc 
animo etiam in praesenti facere sine dilatione potuimus, nisi cum christianissimi Domini 
filii nostri imperatoris hoc, sicut ratio postulat, voluissemus perficere notitia; and Grego- 
rius i, lib. ix. Ep. 11, ad Brunichildem Reginam, while he mentions to Synagrius, bishop 
of Autun, gifted with the pallium, the necessity of the imperial.approbation; yet it was 
probably sought for only when hostile relations existed with the kingdom to which the 





506 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. is. —A.D. 451-622. 


FOURTH CHAPTER. 


HISTORY OF MONACHISM. 


§ 118. 
THE LITERATURE MAY BE SEEN IN THE PREFACE TO § 95. 


In the east, monachism continued in its manifold forms.’ 
Justinian favored it by his laws,’ though he endeavored to 
restrain the irregular wanderings of the Coenobites.* While 


pallium was sent. See Pertsch, l.c. p.196, ss. That a tax was early connected with this 
investiture, see Gregorii i. lib. v. Ep. 57, ad Johannem Episce. Corinth. (also ap. Gratianus 
dist. C. c. 3): Novit autem fraternitas vestra, quia prius pallium nisi dato commodo non 
dabatur. Quod quoniam incongruum erat, facto Concilio tam de hoc quam de ordinationi- 
bus alifuid accipere sub districta interdictione vetuimus. The decree referred to is in 
Mansi, ix. p. 1227. 

1 Comp. the description, Evagrius, i. 21. The spirit of the oriental monks of this period 
may be gathered from Johannis Moschi (about 630) Aewudv, pratum spirituale (in Latin in 
Herib. Rosweydi Vitae patram. Antverp. 1615. fol. p. 855, ss. The Greek original, 
though defective is found in Frontonis Ducaei Auctarium bibl. PP. ii. 1057. . The chasms 
are supplied in Cotelerii Monum. Eccl. Gr. ii. 341). Even here complaints of the decay 
of monachism appear, ex. gr.c. 130: Oi marépec judy tHv éyxparevay Kat THY axTnLO- 
covny péxpt Oavarov éripnoay, qucic 62 éxAarivauey Tac Kothiag judy Kai Barartia, 
k. 7.2. Cf. cap. 52 and 168. 

2 Cod. Justin. i. 3, 53 (a-D. 532), forbids, undéva mavreAGe, unre BovaAevtyy pAte taked- 
thy éxicxorov'} mpeoBirepov Tov Aoirod yivecBat, but adds: TlAgv ei pH éx vyriac 
qitkiac, Kai otra THY EGnBov éxGdonc, Ervye Toic ebAaBectaroLg wovayoic éyKaTaAe- . 
Aeypévoc, kat dvapetvac éxi TodTov Tod oyHuaTocg’ THviKadTa ydp édieuev adiTo Kai 
mpeoButépw yevéobat, Kai sig Exioxonyy é2Ociv,—thy Terdprnv pévTor woipay tie abrot 
Teplovoiac anaong mapéywv Toic BovAevtaic, Kai TO Snuociy. § 3: "Ett Georifouer, 
elre dvnp ext povnpn Biov éAGeciv BovAnbein, elite yuvn Tov Gvdpa Katahixoica mpdc 
Goxnoww Bor, wy TovTO aitd Cnuiacg wapéxew ‘Mpddaciv, GAAA Ta pev oixeia TavTWC 
AauBaverv. Cf. Novell. cxxiii.c. 40: Ei d@ cuveordrog étt Tod yduov 6 dv7np wévoc }} 7 
yuvy pbvn eicé2 On ‘ig povacripliov, diaAvécOw 6 yapuoc, Kai diya ferovdiov. - (On the 
other hand Gregorius M. lib. xi. Ep. 45; Si enim dicunt, religionis causa conjugia debere 
dissolvi, sciendum est, quia etsi hoc lex humana concesssit, divina lex tamen prohibuit. 
Cf: Bingham, vol. iii. p. 45.) Cod. Just. i. 3, 55: Ut non liceat parentibus impedire, quo- 
minus liberi eorum volentes monachi aut clerici fiant, aut eam ob solam causam exheredare 
(cf. Nov. exxiii.c. 41). Nov. v. c. 2, allows slaves to go into convents contrary to the will 
of their masters. 3 : 

3 Novella v. de Monachis (a.D. 535), cap. 4: Ei 6@ tig dxaf gavrov xabiepdcacg Tre 
povacrnpiv, Kal Tod oyHUATOS TYYar, Elita Gvaxwpyoat Tod povacrnpiov BovAnbein, Kat 
idtérnv tvxdv EAécOar Biov’ abroc pév toto, Toiav bxép TobTOV décEL TH Oe@ THY aro- 
Aoyiav, Ta mpdyuara pévror bréca Gv Exot Hvixa ei¢ 76 povaorhpiov eicher, TadTa THe 
Seororeiac Estat TOW wovaorypiov Kai ovd driwdy TuvTEAGe éfaer. Cap.7%: Ei d2 dxo- 


CHAP. IV.-MONACHISM. § 119. BENEDICTINES. 507 


the Stylites in the east still attracted the highest wonder, 
especially one Daniel,‘ in the neighborhood of Constantinople, 
under the Emperors Basiliscus and Zeno, an attempt in the 
neighborhood of reves to imitate them was interdicted by the 
bishops of the place.’ On the other hand, the carespywévor of the 
east, found many admirers especially in Gaul, (Reclausi, Re- 
cluses).° 


§ 119. 


BENEDICTINES. 


Jo. Mabillonii Annales ordinis 8. Benedicti, vi. tomi (the 6th, edited by Edm. Martene, 
reaches to the year 1157). Paris. 1703-1739. auct. Luccae. 1739-1745. fol—Lucae 
Dacherii et Jo. Mabillonii acta Sanctorum Ord. 8. Benedicti (six centuries to 1100), ix. 
voll. 1668-1701. fol. 


In the west, Benedict, a native of Nursia in Umbria,’ gave 
a new form to the monastic life. After he had long lived a 
hermit’s life, he founded a convent on a mountain in Campania, 
where the old castrum Cassinum was situated (hence called 
monasterium Cassinense, monte Cassino). Here he introduced. 
a new system of rules (529)° which mitigated the extreme 


Mrov Td wovacth#ptoy, Kal’ brep THY doKnoly elyerv, ele Etepov wsTaBaivot povacThpLoy, 
Kal obTw wév 7 abTod meptovoia wevéto Te Kal éxdikeicOw bd. TOU mporépov wovacrnpiov, 
évOa arotagapevog Tovro Katédime. apoojxov dé gore Tove ebAaBeoTaTove HyovmévovE 


pn eladéxecOat Tov TODTO TpaTTOVTA. * Acta Danielis, ap: Surium ad d.11 Dec. 
5 Gregor. Turon. Hist. France. viii. 15. 6 Ex. gr., Gregor. Tur. ii. 37, v. 9, 10, vi. 6. 


1 His biographer is Gregorius M. in Dialogorum lib. secundo. 

2 Regula Benedicti in 73 capp. in Hospinian and many others, best in Luc. Holstenii 
Codex regularum monastic. et canon. (Romae. 1661. iii. voll. 4), auctus a Marian. Brockie 
(August. Vindel. 1759. vi. tomi fol.) i. 3, and thence in Gallandii Bibl. PP. xi. 298. Among 
the numerous commentaries the best are by Edm. Martene, Paris. 1690.4, and by Au- 
gustin Calmet, Paris. 1734. t. ii. 4. General regulations: Cap. 64: In Abbatis ordina- — 
tione illa semper consideretur ratio, ut hic constituatur, quem sibi omnis concors congre- 
gatio secundum timorem Dei, sive etiam pars, quamvis parva, congregationis, saniori 
consilio, elegerit. Cap. 65: Quemcunque elegerit Abbas cum consilio fratrum timentium 
Deum, ordinet ipse sibi Praepositum. Qui tamen Praepositus illa agat cum reverentia, 
quae ab Abbate suo ei injuncta fuerint, nihil contra Abbatis voluntatem aut ordinationem 
faciens. Cap.21: Si major fuerit congregatio, eligantur de ipsis fratres boni testimonii 
et sanctae conversationis, et constituantur Decani, qui solicitudinem gerant super Deca- 
nias suas. Cap, 3: Quoties aliqua praecipua agenda sunt in monasterio, convocet Abbas 
omnem congregationem, et dicat ipse unde agitur. Ht audiens consilium fratrum, tractet 
apud se, et quod utilius judicaverit faciat.. Si qua vero minora agenda sunt in monasterii 
utilitatibus, seniorum tantum utatur consilio. Cap. 5: Primus humilitatis gradus est 
obedientia sine mora. Haec convenit iis, qui nihil sibi Christo carius aliquid existimant; 
propter servitium sanctum, quod professi sunt, seu propter metum gehennae, vel gloriam 


508 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. Il—A.D. 451-622. 


rigor of the eastern monks,’ prescribed a variety of suitable 
employments,‘ but was distinguished especially by this, that it 
exacted a promise from all who entered, never to. leave the 
monastery again, and strictly to observe its rules.° This system 
was soon diffused in Italy, Gaul, and» Spain. Instead of the 
former diversity of monasteries, unity now appeared; and thus 
arose the first proper monastic order or association of many 
monasteries under a peculiar rule. The straitening of vows in 
this Benedictine rule was followed by the declaration of marriage 
being invalid in the case of monks ;° while the monks and nuns 


vitae aeternae, mox ut aliquid imperatum a majore fuerit, ac si divinitus imperetur, moram 
pati nesciunt in faciendo. 

3 Cap. 39, appoints for the daily food cocta duo pulmentaria (ut forte, qui ex uno non 
poterit edere, ex alio reficiatur). Et si fuerint inde poma aut nascentia leguminum, adda- 
tur et tertium. Farther panis libra una, and, cap. 40, hemina vini (different opinions con- 
cerning the hemina, see in Martene Comm. in Reg. 8. Bened. p. 539, ss.).. On the other 
hand, carnium quadrupedum ab omnibus abstineatur comestio, praeter omnino debiles et 
aegrotos. Cap. 36: Balneorum usus infirmis, quoties expedit, offeratur. Sanis autem, et 
maxime juvenibus, tardius concedatur. 

4 Cap. 48: Otiositas inimica est animae: et ideo certis temporibus oecupari debent 
fratres in labore manuum, certis iterum horis in lectione divina. Between these the horae 
canonicae, namely the Nocturnae vigiliae, Matutinae, Prima, Tertia, Sexta, Nona, Ves- 
pera, and Completorium (see respecting them cap. 8-19). Cap, 16 justified by Ps. cxix. 
164: Septies in die laudem dixi tibi, and v. 62: Media nocte surgebam ad confitendum 
tibi. Comp. § 95, note 8. 

5 Cap. 58: After ordering a probation time of the noviter venientis ad conversionem: si 
habita secum deliberatione promiserit se omnia custodire et cuncta sibi imperata servare, 
tune suscipiatur in congregatione, sciens se jam sub lege regulae constitutum, quod ei ex 
illa die non liceat egredi de monasterio, nec collam excutere de subjugo regulae, quam 
sub tam morosa deliberatione licuit aut excusare, aut suscipere. Suscipiendus autem in 
oratorio coram omnibus promittat de stabilitate sua, et conversione morum suorum, et 
obedientia coram Deo et sanctis ejus, ut si aliquando aliter fecerit, ab.eo se damnandum 
sciat, quem irridet. De qua promissione sua faciat petitionem ad nomen Sanctorum, 
quorum reliquiae ibi sunt, et Abbatis praesentis. Quam petitionem manu sua scribat, 
aut certe, si non scit literas, alter ab eo rogatus scribat, et ille novitius signum faciat, 
et manu sua eam super altare ponat. Cap. 59: Si quis forte de nobilibus offert filium 
suum Deo in monasterio, si ipse puer minori acetate est, parentes ejus faciant petitionem, 
quam supra diximus. \Et cum oblatione ipsam petitionem et manum pueri involvant in 
palla altaris, et sic eum offerant.- Cap. 66: Monasterium autem, si possit fieri, ita debet 
construi, ut omnia necessaria, id est aqua, molendinum, hortus, pistrinum, vel artes di- 
versae intra monasterium exerceantur, ut non sit necessitas Monachis vagandi foras, quia 
omnino non expedit animabus eorum. 

6 The older appointment (see § 95, note 49), that the breaking of the vow should be 
punished with church-penance, is still repeated by Leo I. Ep. 90, ad Rusticum, c. 12, 
(Propositum monachi—deseri non potest absque peccato. Quod enim vovit Deo, debet 
et reddere. Unde qui relicta singularitatis professione ad militiam vel ad nuptias devo- 
lutus est, publicae poenitentiae satisfactione purgandus est), and Gelasius I. Ep. 5, ad 
Bpisc. Lucaniae (ap. Gratian. Causa xxvii. Qu. 1, ¢. 14). Also Conc. Aurelian. i, ann. 511, 
c. 21, pre-supposes the validity of marriage. (Monachus si in monasterio conversus vel 
pallium comprobatus fuerit accepisse, et postea uxori fuerit sociatus, tantae praevarice- 
tionis reus nunquam ecclesiastici gradus officium sortiatur.) On the contrary, first, the 


ft 


CHAP. IV.—MONACHISM. § 119. BENEDICTINES. 509 


who had left their monasteries began to be violently brought 
back into them.’ 

Of literary pursuits among the monks we find no trace, 
either in Benedict’s rule, or among the first Benedictines.’ It 
was Cassiodorus who made the first attempt of this kind in the 
convent built by him ealled Vivariwm (Coenobium Vivariense, 
538) near Squillacci in Bruttia, whither he had withdrawn ;° 
and where in addition to other useful employments, an endeavor 
was made to introduce learned occupations also into a monastery."” 
The Benedictines, already accustomed to a well regulated ac- 


Conc. Turonicum ii. ann. 567, c. 15: (Monachus) si~uxorem duxerit, excommunicetur, et 
de uxoris male societae consortio etiam judicis auxilio separetur.—Qui infelix monachus, 
—et illi, qui eum exceperint ad defensandum, ab ecclesia segregentur, donec revertatur ad 
septa monasterii, et indictam ab Abbate—agat poenitentiam, et post satisfactionem rever- 
tatur ad gratiam. 

7 Thus Gregory the Great ordered, with reference to a married nun (ap. Gratian. c. xxvii. 
Qu. 1, c. 15), and with reference to another who had merely retarned ad saecularem habi- 
tum, lib. vii. Ep. 9, ad Vitalianum Ep. a.p. 597 (ap. Gratian. 1. c. c. 18): Instantiae tuae 
sit, praedictam mulierem una cum Sergio defensore nostro comprehendere, et statim non 
solum ad male contemptum habitum sine excusatione aliqua revoeare, sed etiam in 
monasterio, ubi omnino districte valeat custodiri, detrudere. And lib. i. Ep. 40, a.p. 591: 
Quia aliquos Monachorum usque ad tantum nefas prosiliisse cognovimus, ut uxores publice 
sortiantur, sub omni vigilantia eos requiras, et inventos digna coércitione in monasteriis, 

quorum monachi fuerant, retransmittas. : 
' 8 See Rich. Simon Critique de la bibliothéque de M. Ell. du Pin. (Paris. 1730. 4. tom. 
8.) i. 212. 

9 That he introduced the rules of Benedict into his convent, as the Benedictines (see 
Garetius in the vita Cass. prefixed to his Opp. p. 27) supposed, has been justly denied by 
Baronius ad ann. 494. 

10 For this purpose he wrote in particular his works de Institutione divinarum litterarum, 
and de Artibus ac disciplinis liberalium litterarum, comp. § 114, note 7. He exhorts, above 
all things, to study the Holy Scriptures and the fathers. -But then he adds, de Instit. div. 
litt. c. 28: Verumtamen nec illud Patres sanctissimi decreverunt, ut saecularium litter- 
arum studia respuantur: quia exinde non minimum ad sacras scripturas intelligendas 
sensus noster instruitur—Frigidus obstiterit cireum praecordia sanguis, ut nec humanis 
nec divinis litteris perfecte possit erudiri: aliqua tamen scientiae’ mediocritate suffultus, 
eligat certe quod sequitur : 


Rura mihi et rigui placeant in vallibus amnes. 


Quia nec ipsum est a Monachis alienum hortos colere, agros exercere, et pomorum foe: 
cunditate gratulari. Cap. 30: Ego tamen fateor votum meum, quod inter vos quaecumque 
possunt corporeo labore compleri, Antiquariorum mihi studia (si tamen veraciter scribant) 
non immerito forsan plus placere; quod et mentem suam relegendo scripturas divinas 
salubriter instruant, et Domini praecepta scribendo longe lateque disseminent. (Comp. 
the directions for copying and revising manuscripts, cap. 15, and the treatise de ortho- 
graphia.)—Cap. 31: Sed et vos alloquor fratres egregios, qui humani corporis salutem 
sedula curiositate tractatis, et confugientibus ad loca sanctorum officia beatae pietatis 
impenditis. Et idéo discite quidem naturas herbarum, commixtionesque specierum sol- 
licita mente tractate. He recommends to them the writings of Dioscorides, Hippopraton: 
and Galen. Comp. Staudlin i in the Kirchenhist. Archive far 1825, 8. 413, ss. 


% 


510 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 451-622. 


_ tivity, very soon followed this example; and thus they ceuld 
now be useful to the west in many ways. 

They reclaimed many waste lands, actively advanced the 
cause of education,'! handed down to posterity the history of 
their time in chronicles, and preserved to it by their copyists, 
for the most part apa as dead treasures, the writings of anti- 
quity. 12 * 


§ 120. 
RELATION OF THE MONKS TO THE CLERGY. 


Though the clergy continued to be very often chosen from 
among the monks, yet there were in the convents no more 
ordained monks than were required by the necessities of the 
monks’ congregation; and many convents had no presbyter 
_whatever.’ The old rule that all convents should be under the 
inspection of the bishops of the dioceses in which they were 
situated,? was first departed from in Africa, where many put 
themselves under the superintendence of distant bishops, espe- 
cially the bishop of Carthage, to keep themselves secure against 
oppression.* In the remaining part of the west, the duty of the 


11 The permission to undertake the care of pueros oblatos, given by Benedict in his rule 
c. 59 (see above, note 5), was soon and often taken advantage of. See Gregory M. dial. ii. 
cap. 3: Coepere etiam tunc ad eum Romanae urbis nobiles et religiosi concurrere, suosque 
ei filios omnipotenti Deo nutriendos dare. For these pueri oblati in particular, the monas- 
tery schools were erected, of which the first intimation is found in the so-called Regula 
Magistri, c. 50 (ap. Holstenius-Brockie, t. i. p. 266), composed about 100 years after Bene 
dict, where it is prescribed that in the three hours from the first to the third, infantuli in 
decada sua in tabulis suis ab uno litterato litteras meditentur. 

12 Cf. Mabillon acta SS. Ord. Ben. t. i. Praef. no. 114 et 115. - 

1 Presbyters were sent into the convents by the bishops (directi, deputati) ad missas 
celebrandras. Gregor. M. lib. vi. Ep. 46, vii. 43—Abbots prayed and received permission 
in monasterio Presbyterum, qui sacra Missarum solemnia celebrare debeat, ordinari. Ibid. 
vi. 42, ix. 92: or’a presbyter was appointed to the convent, quem et in monasterio habitare, 
et inde vitae subsidia habere necesse fuit, ibid. iv. 18.—On the other hand Gregory libb. vi. 
Ep. 56, praises a convent of which he had heard, et Presbyteros et Diaconos cunctamque 
congregationem unanimes vivere ac concordes. 

2 ‘Cone. Chalced. c. 4:—"Edote undéva pv pndapod olxodopetv unde cvvicray povac- 
THptov 7 ebxrhptov olxov mapa yvounv Tod Tig TOAewc "ExioKgrov* tovic d& Ka? 
shana ToAw Kai YOpav povalovrac brorerax0at TO "Extoxéry. Can. 8: Of KAnptkot 
Tév Trexyelav kal povacTnpiwy kai waptupiav bd Tov év Exdoty TbAEt’Exiokérav tiv 
eEovotiav, kata tiv Tov dyiwy catépwr Tapadoct, Siayevérwcar, kal uy KatavOadiateo- 
Gat 7) Gonvidv rod idiov ’ExticKérov. 

3 Conc. Carthag. ann. 525, dies secunda (ap. Mansi, viii. 648). The prayer of Abbas 


CHAP. IV.—_MONACHISM. § 120. MONKS AND CLERGY. 511 


monasteries to be spiritually subject to the diocesan bishops was 
still strictly enforced.t On the other hand, synods and popes 
took them under their protection, in opposition to episcopal 
oppression, and made it a fundamental principle that the bishops 
should not interfere with their internal administration.? Gregory 
the Great, in particular, was distinguished for his protection of 
convents.° 


Petrus to Bishop Boniface of Carthage, p. 653:—Humiles supplicamus, ut—a jugo nos 
clericorum, quod neque nobis neque patribus nostris quisquama superponere aliquando 
tentavit, eruere digneris. Nam docemus, monasterium de Praecisu, quod in medio 
plebium Leptiminensis ecclesiae ponitur, praetermisso eodem Episcopo vicino, Vico 
Ateriensis ecclesiae Episcopi consolationem habere, qui in longinquo positus est.—Nam 
et de Adtumetino monasterio nullo modo silere possumus, qui praetermisso ejusdem civi- 
tatis Episcopo de transmarinis partibus sibi semper presbyteros ordinaverunt—Et cum 
sibi diversa monasteria, ut ostenderent libertatem suam, unicuique prout visum est, a 
diversis Episcopis consolationem quaesierint :_quomodo nobis denegari poterit, qui de hac 
sede sancta Carthaginensis ecclesiae, quae prima totius Africanae ecclesia haberi videtur, 
auxilium quaesivimus? etc. Cf. Concil. Carthagin. ann. 534 (Mansi, viii. 841). Cf Thomas- 
sinus P. i. 1. iii. c. 31. : 

* Conc. Aurelian. i. (511) can. 19. Epaonense (517) can. 19. Arelatense v. (554) can. 7. 

5 So first Concil, Arelatense, iii. A.D. 456 (Mansi, vii. 907), which limited the rights of 
the bishop of the diocese in the convent of Lerins as follows: Ut clerici, atque altaris 
ministri a nullo, nisi ab ipso, vel cui ipse injunxerit ordinentur; chrisma non nisi ab ipso 
speretur; neophyti si fuerint, ab eodem confirmentur; peregrini clerici absque ipsius 
praecepto in communionem, vel ad ministerium non admittantur. Monasterii vero 
omnis laica multitudo ad curam Abbatis pertineat: neque ex ea sibi Episcopus quid- 
‘quam vindicet, aut aliquem ex illa clericum, nisi abbate petente, praesumat. Hoc enim 
et rationis et religionis plenum est, ut clerici ad ordinationem Episcopi debita subjectione 
respiciant: laica vero omnis monasterii congregatio ad solam ac liberam Abbatis proprii, 
quem sibi ipsa elegerit, ordinationem dispositionemque pertineat; regula, quae a fundatore 
ipsius monasterii dudum constituta est, in omnibus custodita. 

_ § Comp. especially Greg. M. lib. viii. Ep. 15, ad Marinianum Ravennae Episc.: Nullus 
audeat de reditibus vel chartis monasterii minuere.—Defuncto Abbate non extraneus nisi 
de eadem congregatione, quem sibi propria voluntate congregatio elegerit, ordinetur— 
Invito Abbate ad ordinanda alia monasteria aut ad ordines sacros tolli exinde monachi 
non debent.—Descriptio rerum aut chartarum monasterii ab Ecclesiasticis fieri non debet. 
—Quia hospitandi occasione monasterium temporibus decessoris vestri nobis fuisse nuncia- ' 
tum est praegravatum: oportet ut hoc Sanctitas vestra decenter debeat temperare. He ~ 
orders a bishop to restore what he had taken from a convent xenii quasi specie, lib. viii. 
Ep. 34. On the other hand he admonishes all bishops to keep a strict watch over the 
discipline and morals of the convents, lib. vi. Ep. 11; vili. Ep. 34.—Other privileges which 
Gregory is alleged to have granted to convents, for instance the celebrated privilegium 
monasterii S. Medardi in Soissons (see appendix to his letters in the Benedictine edition, 


512 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. Il.—A.D. 451-622. 


FIFTH CHAPTER. 


HISTORY OF PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


§ 121. 


How much the sensuous tendency of public worship,’ of 
which we have already spoken, was farther developed in this 
period, and how many new superstitious notions sprung from 
it,” is best seen in the writings of Gregory the Great, a man 
who, with much real piety, had also very many monkish preju- 
dices and great credulity ; while by his high reputation in the 
Western Chureh, he did much to introduce new forms of wor- 
ship, and diffuse a multitude of superstitions. : 

The chief part of the reverence paid to saints came more and 
more to consist in the superstitious worship of relies,? of whose 


1 For it there is a Gecree, Gregorii M. (Opp. ed. Maur. ii. 1288. Mansi, x. 434, also in 
Gratianus dist. 92, c. 2) characteristically: In sancta Romana Ecclesia—dudum consuetudo 
est valde reprehensibilis exorta, ut quidam ad sacri altaris ministerium Cantores eligantur 
et in Diaconatus ordine constituti modulationi vocis inserviant, quos ad praedicationis 
officium eleemosynarumque studium vacare congruebat. Unde fit plerumque, ut ad 
sacrum ministerium dum blanda vox quaeritur, quaeri congrua vita negligatur, et cantor. 
minister Deum moribus stimulet, cum populum vocibus delectat.. He therefore arranges 
that not deacons but sub-deacons and minores ordines should be employed in the singing. 

2 Comp. Neander’s Denkwiirdigkeiten aus der Gesch. des Christenthums. Bd. 3, Heft 1. 
(Berlin. 1824) S. 132, ss. 

3 Gregor. M. lib. iv. Ep. 30, ad Constantinam Aug. ( Serenitas vestra—caput S. Pauli 
Apostoli, aut aliud quid de corpore ipsius, suis ad se jussionibus a me praecepit debere 
transmitti.—Major me moestitia tenuit, quod ilie praecipitis, quae facere nec possum, nec 
audeo. Nam corpora, SS. Petri et Pauli App. tantis in Ecclesiis suis coruscant miraculis 
atque terroribus, ut neque ad orandum sine magno illuc timore possit accedi—Examples. 
Among other things, that in opening the grave of Laurentius monachi et mansionarii, qui 
corpus ejusdem Martyris viderunt, quod quidem minime tangere praesumserunt, omnes 
intra x. dies defuncti sunt (Exod. xxxiii. 20)—Romanis consuetudo non est, quando 
Sanctorum reliquias dant, ut quidquam tangere praesumant de corpore: sed tantummodo 
in pyxide brandeum mittitur, atque ad sacratissima corpora Sanctorum ponitur. Quod 
levatum in Ecclesia, quae est dedicanda, debita cum veneratione reconditur: et tantae 
per hoc ibidem virtutes fiunt, ac si illuc specialiter eorum corpora deferantur (in like man- 
ner Gregor. Turon. de gloria Martyr. i. 28). Unde contigit, ut b. recordationis Leonis P. 
temporibus, sicut a majoripus traditur, dum quidam Graeci de talibus reliquiis dubitarent, 
praedictus Pontifex hoc ipsum brandeum allatis forficibus inciderit, et ex ipsa incisione 
sanguis effluxerit. In Romanis namque vel totius Occidentis partibus omnino intolerabile 
est atque sacrilegum, si Sanctorum corpora tangere quisquam fortasse voluerit. Quod si 
praesumserit, certum est, quia haec temeritas impunita nullo modo remanebit.—Sed quia 


‘CHAP. V.—PUBLIC WORSHIP. § 121. 513 


miraculous power the most absurd stories were told. The con- 
sequence of this was, that the moral aspect of saint-reverence. 
was still farther lost sight of by an age which longed: only for 
the marvelous. As this tendency now began to give rise to im- 
posture in introducing false relics,* it had also the effect of de- 
veloping the legends of the saints, to a greatly increased extent, 
in consequence of the love of the miraculous. The old martyrs, 
of whom for the most part the names alone were handed down,° 
were furnished with new descriptions of their lives, while the new 
saints were dressed out with wonderful narratives; even martyrs, 
with the histories of martyrs, were entirely fabricated anew.® 

In the worship of saints, angels were now without hesitation 
made to participate, to whom also churches were dedicated.’ 


serenissimae Dominae tam religiosum desiderium esse vacuum non debet, de catenis, 
quas ipse 8. Paulus Ap. in collo et in manibus gestavit, ex quibus multa miracula in 
populo demonstrantur, partem aliquam vobis transmittere festinabo, si tamen hanc tollere 
limando praevaluero, namely, quibusdam petentibus, diu per catenas ipsas ducitur lima, 
et tamen ut aliquid exinde exeat non obtinetur.—Lib. ix. Ep. 122, ad Recharedum 
Wisigoth. Regem: Clavem vero parvulam a sacratissimo b. Petri Ap. corpore vobis pro 
ejus benedictione transmisimus, in qua inest ferrum de catenis ejus inclusum; ut quod 
collum illius ad martyrium ligaverat, vestrum ab omnibus peccatis solvat. Crucem quoque 
dedi latori praesentium vobis offerendam, in qua lignum Dominicae crucis inest, et capilli 
b. Joannis Baptistae. Ex qua semper solatium nostri Salvatoris per intercessionem 
praecursoris ejus habeatis. — Cf. lib. iii. Ep. 33. A number of similar miraculous stories 
are found in the works of Gregory of Tours, see note 6. 

* Gregor. M. lib. iv. Epist. 30, ad Constantinam Aug.: Quidam Monachi Graeci huc 
ante biennium yenientes nocturno silentio juxta ecclesiam S. Pauli corpora mortuoruna 
in campo jacentia effodiebant, atque eorum ossa recondebant, servantes sibi dum recede- 
rent. Qui cum tenti, et cur hoc facerent diligenter fuissent discussi, confessi sunt quod 
illa ossa ad Graeciam essent tanquam Sanctorum reliquias portaturi. Concil. Caesar- 
august. ii. (592) can. 2: Statuit S. Synodus ut reliquiae in quibuscunque locis de Ariana 
haeresi inventae fuerint, prolatae, a Sacerdotibus, in quorum ecclesiis reperiuntur, ponti- 
ficibus praesentatae igne probentur (the old German ordeal). 

5 Gregor. M. lib. viii. Ep. 29, see Div. I. § 53, note 46. 

6 The writings of Gregory, archishop of Tours, afford abundant proofs of all this. See 
above § 114, note 18. Among many other things we find also in him for the first time (de Gloria 
mart. i. 95), the legend belonging to the Decian persecution de septem dormientibus apud 
urbem Ephesum. It had been derived from an old tradition which is even found in Pliny 
Nat. hist. vii. 5¢; but which being afterward transferred to Christian martyrs, was differ- 
ently localized. Thus it appears in the Koran (Surat 18) to be transplanted into Arabia, _ 
subsequently it was carried into Gaul (Pseudo-Gregor Tur. Epist. ad Sulpic. Bituric.), to 
Germany (Nicephori Call. Hist. eccl. v. 17), and also to the north (Paulus Diac. de Gestis 
Longob. i. 4). 

7 Comp. § 99, note 34. As presents had been made to the deities in heathen Rome, so 
now they were frequently made to saints and angels. Cf lex Zenonis (Cod. Just. i. ii. 
15): Si quis donaverit aliquam rem—in honorem Martyris, aut Prophetae, aut Angeli, 
tanquam ipsi postea oratorium aedificaturus,—cogitur opus, quamvis nondum inchoatum 
fuerit, perficere per se vel per heredes. Justiniani, A.D. 530 (I. c. 1. 26): In multis jam 
testamentis invenimus ejusmodi institutiones, quibus aut ex asse quis scripserat Dominum 
nostrum Jesum Christum heredem: then the inheritance of the church of the place was to 


VoL. L—oo 


514 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 451-622. 


Pictures became more common in the churches. In the east 
authentic likenesses of Christ now appeared in public,’ and 
were the principal means of establishing there the worship of 
images ;° but in the west the latter was still rejected." 

Justinian was distinguished for building splendid | churches." 

To the festivals were added the two feasts of Mary, festum 
purificationis (éraravr#) on the second of February; and 
festum annunctationis (4 Tov sliayat chee, juépa) on the 25th 
of March.’” 

On the three days before the ascension (jejunium rogationum), 
Mamercus or Mamertus, bishop of Vienne (452), had instituted 
solemn rites-of penance and prayer, accompanied by fasting and 
public worship (litaniae, rogationes), appointed for the three days 


be applied to the benefit of the poor. Si vero quis unius ex Archangelis meminerit, vel 
venerancorum Martyrum, in that case the nearest church dedicated to him shall be heir. 

8 The picture of Christ by Luke first mentioned by Theodorus Lector about 518, which 
was,sooh followed by pictures of other holy persons from the same hand. But after this 
appeared the eixévec dyelporointol, a counterpart of the dyd2uara diomeTH of heathen- 
ism, first noticed in Evagrius, iv. 27. See Diy. I. § 21, note 4. 

*° Comp. especially the fragment of Leontii (bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus t about 620) 
‘Apologia pro Christianis adv. Judaeos in the Acts of the Conc. Nic. ii. ann. 787, Act. 4 
(Mansi, xiii. 43), where he defends xpocxivyere before the pictures, mentions even aludruv 
ptcetc é& eixévwy and designates the pictures as rpd¢ Gvduvygow Kai Tiyy Kal ebrpérerav 
éxkAqolGv mpoxeiveva Kal mpooxvvodueva. Neander’s Kirchengesch. ii. ii. 627, ss. 

10 Gregorii Magni lib. ix. Ep. 105, ad Serenum Massiliensem Ep.: Praeterea indico 
daudum ad nos pervenisse, quod Fraternitas vestra, quosdam imaginum adoratores ad- 
spiciens, easdem in Ecclesiis imagines confregit atque projecit. Et quidem zelum vos, ne 
quid manufactum adorari posset, habuisse laudavimus, sed frangere easdem imagines non 
debuisse indicamus. Idcirco enim pictura in Ecclesiis adhibetur, ut hi,-qui litteras 
nesciunt, saltem in parietibus videndo legant, quae legere in codicibus non valent (as 
Paulinus Nilus, § 99, notes 47 and 48). Tua ergo Fraternitas et illas servare, et ab earum 
adoratu populum prohibere debuit: quatenus et litteraram nescii haberent, unde scientiam 
historiae colligerent, et populus in picturae adoratione minime peccaret. Lib. xi. Ep. 13, 
ad eundem: Quod de scriptis nostris, quae ad te misimus, dubitasti, qaam sis incautus 
apparuit. Amplification of the above. Among other things, frangi ergo non debuit, quod 
non ad adorandum in ecclesiis, sed ad instruendas soluammodo mentes fuit nescientium 
collocatam. Cf. lib. ix. Ep. 52, ad Secundinum: Imagines, quas tibi dirigendas per 
Dulcidam Diaconum rogasti, misimus. Unde valde nobis tua postulatio placuit: quia 
illum toto corde, tota intentione qnaeris, cujus imaginem prae oculis habere desideras, ut 
te visio corporalis quotidiana reddat exercitatum: ut dum picturam illius vides, ad illum 
animo inardescas, cujus imaginem videre desideras. Ab re non facimus, si per visibilia 
invisibilia demonstramus. Scio quidem, quod imaginem Salvatoris nostri non ideo petis, 
ut quasi Deum colas, sed ob recordationem filii Dei in ejus amore recalescas, cujus te imag- 
inem videre desideras. Et nos quidem non quasi ante divinitatem ante illam prosternimur, 
sed illum adoramus, quem per imaginem aut natum, aut passum, sed et in throno sedentem 
recordamur. 

11 Procopius Caesariensis de Aedificiis Jastiniani libb. vi. 

12 Bingham vol. ix. p.170,ss. J. A. Schmidii Prolusiones Marianae sex. Helmst. 1733. 
4. p. 116, ss. 103, 88. 


~ 
CHAP. V.—PUBLIC WORSHIP, §121.THE LORD'S SUPPER. 515 


before the ascension (jejunium rogationum). To this festival - 
Gregory the Great added new ceremonies (litania septiformis)."* 
He also improved the church-music (cantus Gregorianus).’° 

Justinian first transferred to the spiritual relationship (cog- 
natio spiritualis) between the god-father and the god-child, the 
civil consequences arising from corporeal affinities.’® 

Gregory the Great, in his Sacramentarium, gave that form 
_ to the Roman liturgy relative to the Lord’s Supper, which it 
has substantially preserved ever since.’’ The earlier notions 
of this rite, and of its atoning power, became more exaggerated 
in proportion as the idea became general, which was thrown 
out by Augustine as a donjecture,'* that men would be sub-_ 


13 Sidonius Apollinaris Ep. Arvernorum (t 482) Epistolarum lib. vii. Ep.1, lib.v. Ep. 14 
Gregor. Tur. ii. 34. Bingham, vol. y. p. 21. 

14 Appendix ad Gregorii Epistolas, no. iii. and Sermo tempore mortalitatis (in the older 
edition, lib. xi. Ep. 2). 

15 Joannes Diac. de vit. Gregorii, lib. ii.c. 7. Martin. Gerbert de Cantu et musica sacra 
(Bambergae et. Frib. 1774, t: ii. 4), t. i. p..35, ss. Jos. Antony’s archaologisch-liturg. 
Lehrbuch d. gregorian. Kirchengesanges. Milinster. 1829. 4. 

6 Tdeas of regeneration in baptism, of spiritual generation, of the brotherly relation. of 
Christians, had before led men to compare the relations of the baptizer, of the godfather, 
and the baptized, with CORES relationship. Cf. Fabii eae Victorini (about 360) Comm. 
. fit, ille qui baptizetunt teat te vel Re Metin, eanelcie PPR dicitur. Cf. Gothofr. Arnoldi 
Hist. cognationis spiritualis inter Christianos receptae. Goslar. 1730. 8. p. 44, ss. From 
this now proceeded the decree of Justinian, Cod. lib. v. tit. 4, de nuptiis, 1.26: Ea persona 
omnimodo ad nuptias venire prohibenda, quam aliquis—a sacrosancto suscepit baptismate : 
cum nihil aliud sic inducere potest paternam affectionem et justam nuptiarum prohibitio- 
nem, quam hujusmodi nexus, per quem Deo mediante animae eorum copulatae sunt. 
The relation was considered as a sort of adoption. See du Fresne Glossar. s. v. Adoptio 
et Filiolatus. 

17 Joannes Diac. de vita Greg. ii. 17: Sed et Gelasianum codicem, de missarum solem- 
niis multa subtrahens, pauca convertens, nonnulla superadjiciens, in unius libelli yolumine 
coarctavit. Jo. Bona Rerum liturg. libb. ii. Colon. 1764. 8, and frequently. Best edited 
in his Opp. omnibus. Antverp. 1723. fol. Th. Christ. Lilienthal de Canone Missae Gre- 
goriano. Lugd. Bat. 1740. 8. 

18 Entirely distinct from the purifying fire of the last day, the belief in which has. been 
frequent since Origen (see Div. I. § 63, note 12), and in which even Augustine seems to 
believe, August. de Ciy. Dei, xx. 25, apparere in illo judicio quasdam quorundam purgato- 
rias poenas futuras. On the other hand, liber de viii. quaestionibus ad-Dulcitium, § 13: 
Tale aliquid (ignem, tribulationis tentationem) etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non 
est, et utrum ita sit, quaeri potest, et aut inveniri aut latere, nonnullos fideles per ignem 
quendam purgatorium, quanto magis minusve bona pereuntia dilexerunt, tanto tardius 
citiusve salvari. De Civ. Dei, xxi. 26: Post istius sane corporis mortem, donec ad illum 
veniatur, qui post resurrectionem corporum futurus est damnationis et remunerationis 
ultimus dies, si hoc temporis intervallo spiritus defunctoram ejusmodi ignem dicuntur per- 
peti,—non redarguo, quia forsitan verum est. Dallaei de Poenis et satisfactionibus humanis 
libb. vii. Amst.1649.4. J.G.Chr. Hoepfner de Origine dogmatis de purgatorio. Hal. 

1792. 8. Muinscher’s Dogmengeschichte, Th. 4 8. 425. 


516 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. II.—A.D. 451-622, 


jected to a purifying fire immediately after death. Gregory the 
Great did much to confirm these notions by descriptions of the 
tortures of departed souls, and the mitigation of such tortures by 
the sacrifice offered in the Supper.”” In proportion as the latter 
assumed the form of a tremendum mysterium, the more seldom 
did the people partake of it, so that it was necessary for the 
Church to enact laws on the subject.?! In other respects the 


ideas of the nature of the elements in the Supper suffered no 
change (§ 101, note 15).” 


12 Caesarius Arelat. Hom. viii. on 1 Cor. iii. 11-15 (in Bibl. PP. Lugd. viii. 826), has the 
Augustinian distinction between peccata capitalia and minuta, and teaches that the latter 
are expiated by an ignis transitorius or purgatorius ; but yet he places the latter in the 
time of the final judgment. LIlle ipse purgatorius ignis durior erit, quam quicquid potest 
poenarum in hoc saeculo aut cogitari, aut videri, aut sentiri. Et cum de die judicii scrip. 
tum sit, quod erit dies unus tanquam mille anni, et mille anni tanquam dies unus: unde 
scit unusquisque, utrum diebus aut mensibus, an forte etiam et annis per illum ignem sit 
transiturus. Et qui modo unum digitum suum in ignem mittere timet, quare non timeat, 
ne necesse sit tunc non parvo tempore cum animo et corpore (consequently after the 
resurrection) cruciari? Et ideo totis viribus unusquisque laboret, ut et capitalia crimina 
possit evadere, et minuta peccata ita operibus bonis redimere, ut aut parum ex ipsis, ant 
nihil videatur remanere, quod ignis ille possit absumere—Omnes sancti, qui Deo fideliter 
serviunt,—per ignem illum—absque ulla violentia transibunt. Illi vero, qui, quamvis 
capitalia crimina non admittant, ad perpetranda minuta peccata sint faciles, ad vitam 
aeternam—venturi sunt; sed prius aut in saeculo per Dei justitiam vel misericordiam 
amarissimis tribulationibus excoquendi, aut illi ipsi per multas eleemosynas, et dum inimi- 
cis clementer indulgent, per Dei misericordiam liberandi, aut certe illo igne, de quo dixit 
Apostolus, longo tempore cruciandi sunt, ut ad vitam aeternam sine macula et ruga per- 
veniant. Ille vero, qui aut homicidium, aut sacrilegium, aut adulterium, vel reliqua his 
similia commiserunt, si eis digna poenitentia non subvenerit, non per purgatorium ignem 
transire merebuntur ad vitam, sed aeterno incendio praecipitabuntur ad mortem. Cf. 
‘Ondinus de Scriptoribus eccl. i. 1514. 

20 Greg. M. Dialog. lib. iv. c. 39: Qualis hinc quisque egreditur, talis in judicio prae- 
sentatur. Sed tamen de quibusdam levibus culpis esse ante judicium purgatorius ignis 
credendus est, pro eo quod veritas dicit, quia si quis in 8. Spiritu blasphemiam dixerit, 
neque in hoc seculo remittetur ei, neque in futuro (Matth. xii. 31). In qua sententia datur 
intelligi, quasdam culpas in hoc seculo, quasdam seculo vero in futuro posse laxari— 
Instances of such tormented souls, ibid. ii. 23, iv. 40, especially iv. 55: Si culpae post mor- 
tem insolubiles non sunt, multum solet animas etiam post mortem sacra oblatio hostiae 
salutaris adjuvare, ita ut hanc nonnumquam ipsae defunctorum animae expetere videan- 
tur, with two examples. Peter, listening, artlessly asks (iv. 40): Quid hoe est, quaeso, 
quod in his extremis temporibus tam multa de animabus clarescunt, quae ante latuerunt : 
ita ut apertis revelationibus atque ostensionibus venturam saeculum inferre se nobis atque 
aperire videatur? To which Gregory replies (c. 41): Ita est: nam quantum praesens 
saeculum propinguat ad finem, tantum futurum saeculum ipsa jam quasi propinquitate 
tangitur, et signis manifestioribus aperitur. 

21 Conc. Agathense (506) can. 18: Saeculares, qui natale domini, pascha, et pentecosten 
non communicaverint, catholici non credantur, nec inter catholicos habeantur. 

22 Gelasins P. de Duabus in Christo naturis ady. Eutychen et Nestorium (cited as gen- 
nine even by his contemporaries, Gennadius de Script. c. 94, and Fulgentius Rusp. in 
Epist. xiv. ad Fulgentium Ferrandum, cap. 19, in Gallandii Bibl. t. xi. p. 334, and there- 

fore doubted without reason by Baronius, Bellarminus, and others. It is found in the Bibl 


CHAP. VI—I. CHRISTIANITY IN ASIA AND AFRICA. §122. §17 


SIXTH CHAPTER. 


SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY, AND ITS CONDITION WITHOUT THE 
ROMAN EMPIRE. 


Z. IN ASIA AND AFRICA. 
§ 122. 


During the reign of Justinian I., the people dwelling on the 
Black Sea, viz., the Abasgt, Alani, Lazi, Zani, and Heruli, 
declared themselves in favor of Christianity, and for the Catholic 
Church. But the Nestorians and Monophysites made much 
more important pelneeb wis to the cause, during this period, in 
Asia and Africa. 

The Nestorians' not only maintained themselves in Persia, 
where they enjoyed exclusive protection (§ 88, at the end), but 
also spread themselves on all sides in Asia, particularly into 
Arabia? and India,* and it is said, in the year 636, even as 


PP., in Heroldi Haereseologia. Basil. 1556. fol. p. 683, etc.): Certe sacramenta, quae 
sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi, divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinae 
efficimur consortes naturae, et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. 
Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. 
Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur, hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum, quod in 
ejus imagine profitemur, celebramus et sumimus, ut sicut in hance, scilicet in divinam trans- 
eant Spiritu 8. perficiente substantiam permanente tamen in sua proprietate natura, sic illud 
ipsum mysterium principale, cujus nobis efficientiam virtutemque veraciter repraesentant. 
Facundus Hermian. pro defens. iii..capitul. ix.5: Nam sacramentum adoptionis suscipere 
dignatus est Christus, et quande circumcisus est, et quando baptizatus est; ‘et potest 
sacramentum adoptionis adoptio nuncupari, sicut sacramentum corporis et sanguinis ejus, 
quod est in pane.et poculo consecrato, corpus ejus et sanguinem dicimus: non quod pro- 
prie corpus ejus sit panis, et pocnlum sanguis: sed quod in se mysterium corporis ejus et 
sangninis contineant. Hine et ipse Dominus benedictum panem et calicem, quem dis- 
ecipulis tradidit, carpus et sanguinem suum vocavit. Cramer’s Forts. v. Bossuet, Th. 5, 
Bd. 1, 8. 200, ff. 

1 Concerning them, compare especially Jos. Sim. Assemani Diss. de Syris Nestorianis, 
Part ii. tom. iii. of the Biblioth. orientalis. 2 Assemanus, l. c. p. 607, s. 

3 Cosmas Indicopleustes (about 535) Christ. topographiae, lib. iii., says that there was a 
Christian Church év 77 TaxpoSdvy viow év rH éowrépg ’Ivdig (namely lib. xi.: "ExxAgoia 
rtov éridypobovtwy Ilepody ypiotiavdv with a mpeoBitepoc amo Ilepaidog yetporovod- 
uevoc): obk oida dé ei kai mepattépw. So too in Male. But év 77 KadAuiva—énioxomég 
éotw amd Uepaidog yetpotovoipuevoc. So also év tH viow tH KaAovpévy Atookopidove— 
‘Opoiwcg 62 kai éxi Baxtpoic, cai Odvvorc, kai Tépoaic, nat Aorroi¢ "Ivdoic, kai Mepoap- 
qeviow, Kat Miydore, kal ’E2auirace xai rdon tH XOpa Ilepoidoc Kai ExxAnaiae dretpor, 


518 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I—A.D. 451-622. - 


far as China.‘ Along with the theological tendencies of the 
Syrian Church, whence they had come forth, they preserved its 
learning likewise; and were thus the introducers of Greek 
science into Asia. Their school in Nisibis was the only theo- 
logieal institution of Christendom in the sixth century.° 

The Monophysites, on the other hand, spread themselves from 
Alexandria toward the south. Among the Hamdschars or 
Homerites, Christianity had been early established (§ 107); 
though it did not become general till the time of Anastasius.*® 
But when Dhu-Nowas, a Jewish king of this people, afterward 
persecuted the Christians with violence (522), the Aethiopian 
king Elesbaan came to their aid (529) ; in consequence of 
which the Homerites were subject to Aethiopian rulers for 
seventy-two’ years.’ As the Homerite Christians were Mono- 


Kal éricKkorol, Kat yptoTiavol Aaol réuroAAo1; kK. T. 2. Hence the Christiani S. Thomae. 
Cf. Assemanus, l. c. p. 435, ss., again discovered in the sixteenth century by the Portu- 
guese in Malabar (about a.p. 780, all the Persian Christians, among whom were the: 
Indian, declared themselves. disciples Thomae Apostoli. See Abulpharagius ap. Assem: 
1. c. p. 438). 

4 That is, if the monumentum Syro-Sinicam be genuine, which is said to have been. 
erected A.D. 781, and discovered 1625 in the-city Si-an-fu, in the province Schen-si, copies: 
of the inscription on it having been sent to Europe by the Jesuit missionaries. First 
published in Athanas. Kircheri Prodromus Copticus, Rom. 1636, 4. p. 74, and in ejusd. 
China illustrata, ibid. 1667. fol. p. 43, ss., also in Mosheim Hist. Tartarorum eccl.. Helmst. 
1741. 4. App. p.4. The genuineness of the monument has always been. doubted by many. 
So in particular by La Croze, against whom Assemanus Bibl. Orient. iii. ii. 538, defends: 
it. Renaudot Anciennes relations des Indes et de la Chine. Paris. 1718, p. 228; Mosheim: 
Hist. Tart. eccl. p.9. Deguignes Untersuchung tiber die in 7ten Jahrh. in Sina sich auf- 
haltenden Christen. Greifsw. 1769.4; Abel Remusat Nouveaux mélanges. Paris. 1829, 
ii. 189; and Saint Martin on Lebeau Hist. du Bas-Empire (new edition. Paris. 1824, voll. 
xi.) vi. 69, hold it to be genuine. On the contrary; Beausobre (Hist. de Manichée, c. 14), 
Neumann in the Jahrb. f. wissen. Kritik, 1829, S. 592, and Von Bohlen (das alte Indien. 
Konigsberg. 1830, Th. 1. S. 383), have once more declared if to be a work of the Jesuits. 

5 It was formed at the end of the fifth century out of the exiled remains of the school’ 
ss., cf. p. 80, and the passage of Cassiodorus given above, § 114, note 14. The African. 
bishop, Junilius (about 550), relates in the preface to his work de partibus divinae legis. 
respecting the origin of it, that he had become acquainted with quendam Paulum nomine,. 
Persam genere, qui in Syrorum schola in Nisibi urbe est edoctus, ubi divina lex per 
magistros publicos, sicut apud nos in mundanis studiis Grammatica et Rhetorica, ordine 
ac regulariter traditur. He had read drawn up by him, regulas quasdam, quibus ille- 
discipulorum animos, divinarum scripturarum superficie instractes, priusquam expositionis, 
profunda patefaceret, solebat imbuere, ut ipsarum interim causaram, quae in divina lege 
versantur, intentionem ordinemque cognoscerent, ne sparsin et turbulente, sed regulariter- 
singula discerent. These regularia instituta he gives here with some alteration of the 
form. 6 Theodori Lect. Hist. eccl. ii. where they are called ‘Iuucpyvoi. 

7 Comp. the varying accounts of the contemporaries Johannis Episc. Asiae in Assemani- 
Bibl. orient. i. 359; Simeonis Episc. in Perside Epist., preserved in Zachariae Hist. eccl. 
ap. Assemani, 1, c. p. 364, and in Maji Coll. x. i.376, and.Procopius de Bello Persico i. c. 


‘ 


CHAP. VI. IL—CHRISTIANITY. § 123. GERMAN NATIONS. 519 


physites, the Monophysite doctrines were. carried to other parts 
of Arabia.* Under Justinian the Nubians were also converted 
to Christianity by the Monophysites of Alexandria.° 


Il. AMONG THE GERMAN NATIONS. 


Planck’s Gesch. d. christl. kirchl. Gesellschaftsverfassung. B. 2. 


§ 123. 


SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY AMONG THE GERMAN NATIONS. 


The first German people converted to the Christianity of the 
Catholic Church were the /ranks, who since 486 had been mas- 
ters of the greatest part of Gaul. Clovis, king of the Salian 
Franks, influenced by his queen Clotildis, and by a vow made 
at the battle of Zolbiacum (Ziilpich, 496), was baptized by Re- 
migius, bishop of Rheims,’ and his people followed his example. 


17 and 20. Martyrium Arethae (Arethas, head of the Christian city Nadschran), hitherto 
known only in the work of Simeon Metaphr. but recently published in the original in J. 
¥r. Boissonade Anecdota graeca, v. 1 (Paris. 1833). Walchii Hist: rerum in Homeritide 
seculo sexto gestarum, in the Novis Commentariis Soc. Reg. Gottingensis, iv. 1. Johann- 
sen Historia Jemanae (Bonnae. 1828) p. 88, ss. Jost’s Gesch. der Israeliten, v. 253, 354. 
Lebeau Hist. du Bas-Empire, ed. Saint Martin, viii. 48. On the chronology, see De Sacy 
in the Mémoires de Acad. des Inscript. 1. 531, 545.—Respecting Gregentius, archbishop 
of Taphara, who was in the highest repute under the Christian viceroy, Abraham, see 
Gregor. disp. cam Herbano Judaeo ed. Nic. Gulonius. Lutet. 1586. 8, and véyor tév 
‘Ounpitov, composed by Gregentius, ap. Boissonade, v. 63. 

8 Assemani Bibl. orient. iii. ii. 605. The Arab tribes among whom Christianity was 
propagated, are pointed out in Ed. Pocockii Spec. Hist. Arabum, ed. Jos. White. Oxon. 
1806, p. 141. 

® Abulpharagius in Assem. Bibl. orient. t. ii, p. 330, Comp. Letronne Nouvel examen 
de Vinscription grecque du roi nubien Silco, considerée dans ses rapports avec la propaga- 
tion de la langue grecque et l'introduction du christianisme parmi les peuples de la Nubie 
et de l’Abyssinie, in the Mémoires de l'institut royal de France, Acad. des inscriptions, 
t. ix. (1831) p. 128. 

1 Gregorii Turonensis (f 595) Historiae Francorum (libb. 10, till the year 591, best edited 
in Dom Martin Bouquet Rerum Gallicarum et Francicarum scriptores, t. ii. Paris. 1739, 
fol.) lib. ii. c. 28-31. F.W. Rettberg’s Kirchengesch. Deutchslands, Bd. i. (Géttingen. 
1845.8) S. 270. Dr. C. G. Kries de Greg. Tur. vita et scriptis. Vratisl. 1839. 8. Gregor 
y. Toursu. s. Zeit, von. J. W. Lobell. Leipzig. 1839. 8.—Tradition of the oil-flask brought 
by a dove found first in Hincmar in vita Remigii, cap. 3. The Ampulla itself first came 
to light at the coronation of Philip Il, 1179, and was broken in the year 1794, at Rhill’s 
command. Comp. de Vertot. Diss. au sujet de la sainte ampulle (Mémoires de l’ Acad. des 
Inscr. t. ii. Mém. p. 669). C. G.v. Murr iber die heil. si tte in Rheims. Niirnberg 
u. Altdorf, 1801. 8. 

’ 


520 “SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. II.—A.D. 451-622. 


From the Franks Christianity was propagated among the AJJe- 
manni, who were subject to them.” 

So far as the inclination of all Romans that had been sub- 
jected to the yoke of the Germans leaned immediately to the 
Franks as Catholic Christians,* the latter obtained an important 
predominance of influence over the other German people. For 
this reason the others successively came over at this time to the 
Catholic Church.* This took place in regard to the Burgund- 
dans, under their King Sigismund (517); the Swevi, under their 
Kings Carrarich (550-559) and Theodemir I. (559-569) ;° the 
Visigoths, under their King Reccared at the council of Toledo 
(589).© Since under Justinian the Vandal kingdom in Africa 
(534), and that of the Ostrogoths in Upper Italy (553), had been 
destroyed, Arianism also lost its dominion in those territories. 

On the contrary, it revived under the rule of the Lombards 
in Italy (from 568), and was longest maintained among this 
people.’ 

In other parts, the amalgamation of the German conquerors 
with the older inhabitants of their land,® and the development 
of the new European nations, were universally effected by 
similarity of faith.° 


2 Bishopric of Vindonissa (now Windisch in the canton Aargau) transferred to Constance 
in the 6th century. Sosimus, the first known bishop of Augsburg, A.D. 582. C.J. Hefele’s 
Gesch. d. Einfuhrang des Christenth. im siidwestl. Deutschland. Tibingen. 1837, S. 112. 

3 Gregor. Tur. Hist. ii. 36: Multi jam tune ex Gallis habere Francos dominos summo 
desiderio cupiebant. Unde factum est, ut Quintianus Rutenorum (Rodez) Episcopus per 
hoc odium ab urbe depelleretur (by the Visigoths). Dicebant enim ei: quia desiderium 
tuum est, ut Francorum dominatio possideat terram hanc. Hence Chlodowich gave his 
war against the Visigoths the appearance of being undertaken chiefly from religious zeal. 
He said to his people, 1. c. c. 37: Valde moleste fero, quod hi Ariani partem teneant 
Galliarum. Eamus cum Dei adjutorio, et superatis redigamus terram in ditionem nostram. 

* A history of Arianism among the German nations in Walch’s Ketzerhist. ii. 553. 

5 The history of Carrarich’s conversion in Gregor. Turon. de miraculis 8. Martini, i. c.11; 
but Theodemir first propagated the catholic faith among the people, and therefore Isidorus 
Chron. Suevorum even makes him the first catholic king of the Suevi.. See Ferrera’s 
span. Geschichte, Bd. 2. 

6 Aschbach’s Gesch. d. Westgothen. Frankf. a. M. 1827, S. 220, ff. 

7 Paulus Warnefridi, Diaconus (about 774) : de Gestis Longobardorum libb. vi. (best in 
Muratori Scriptor. Italic. Tom. i. Mediol. 1723, fol.). 

8 Formerly marriages between the two parties were universally forbidden by the 
Church; but among the Visigoths they were also prohibited by the civil code: See leges 
Visigothorum (best edition: Fuero juzgo en latin y castellano, por la real Academia 
espafiola. Madrid. 1815. fol.) iii. i. 2 (a law of King Recesvinth from 649-672): Priscae 
legis remota sententia hac in perpetuum valitura lege sancimus, ut tam Gothus Roma- 
nam, quam etiam Gotham Romanus, si conjugem habere voluerit,—facultas eis nubendi 
subjaceat. 

8 H.1I. Royaard’s tiber d. Grindung u. Entwickelung der neueurop. Staaten im Mittel- 


CHAP. VI. IL—GERMAN NATIONS. § 124. HIERARCHY. 521 


At the end of this period began the conversion of the Anglo- 
Saxons in Britain, - Augustine, sent thither by Gregory the 
Great with forty Benedictines (596), was first received by 
Ethelbert, King of Kent, through the influence of his Queen 
Bertha, who’ was a Frank. From Kent Christianity was 
gradually diffused in the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms." 


§ 124. ; 


HIERARCHY IN THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 


Eugen Montag’s Gesch. der deutschen staatsbiirgerlichen Freiheit. (Bamb. u. Wiurzb. 
1812. 8.) Bd. 1, Th. 1, 8. 205, if. Th. 2, S. 1, ff. K. F. Eichhorn’s deutsche Staats- u. 
Rechtsgeschichte. (4 Theile. 4te Ausg. Gottingen. 1834-36. 8.) i. 217, 478. Gregor v. 
Tours u. s. Zeit von T. W. Lobell, S. 315. §. Sugenheim’s Staatsleben des Klerus im 
Mittelalter. Bd. 1. Berlin. 1839. ; ‘ 


Although the ecclesiastical constitution and code which had 
been formed in the Roman Empire were adopted by the Ger- 
man nations,‘ yet the relations of the hierarchy received a 
peculiar form. The kings soon saw how much their power 
could be supported and strengthened by the reputation of the 
clergy ;? and they endeavored therefore to bind more closely to 
themselves the heads of the clergy, the bishops and abbots. 
Churches and monasteries received considerable possessions from 
their hands,’ while the bishops and abbots, as the temporary 


alter, bes. durch d. Christenth. aus d. Archief Deel 2, tibersetzt, v. G. Kinkel, in Igen’s 
Zeitchr. f. d. hist. Theol. v. i. 67. 

10 Beda Venerabilis (ft 735) Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum libb. y. ed. Fr. 
Chiffletius. Paris.1681.4. Joh.Smith. Cantabrig.1722. fol. Jos. Stevenson (Bedae Opp. 
hist. t. i.) Lond.1838.8. J. A. Giles (Bedae Opp. vol. 2et 3). Lond. 1843.8. Das erste 
Jabrh. d. engl. Kirche, od. Einfuhrung und Befestigung des Christenthums bei den Angel- . 
sachen in Britannien, v. D. K. Schrédl. Passau. 1840.8. [Sharon Turner’s History of the 
Anglo-Saxons, 3 vols, 8vo. London, 1823, fourth edition. Lingard’s History of the Anglo- 
Saxon Church, second edition, 2 vols. 8vo, 1845. Lond.] 

1 As all conquered nations lived according to their own law (Lex Ripuariorum, tit. xxxi. 
§ 3), so the clergy, according to Roman law, Lex Ripuar. tit. lviii.§1: Legem Romanam, 
qua Ecclesia vivit. Comp. Eichhorn, i. 172, 217. 

2 Chlodovaei praeceptum pro Monasterio Reomaensi, in Bouquet Rerum gall. scriptt. 
iv. 615: Servos Dei, quorum virtutibus gloriamur et orationibus defensamur, si nobis 
amicos acquirimus, honoribus sublimamus atque obsequiis veneramur, statum regni nostri 
perpetuo augere credimus, et saeculi gloriam atque caelestis regni patriam adipisci con- 
fidimus. Lobell, S. 318. 

* Gregor. Turon. Hist. Franc. vi. 46: Chilperich, king in Soissons (from 561-384), ajebat 
pleramque: Ecce pauper remansit fiscus noster, ecce divitiae nostrae ad Ecclesias sunt 
translatae: nulli penitus nisi oli Episcopi regnant: periit honor noster et translatus est 


522 ; SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. Il.—A.D. 451-622 


possessors, became the vassals (ministeriales) of the king,* were 
often employed in affairs of the state, and were thus invested. 
with a very important political influence. The possessions of 
the Church were only by degrees, as exceptions, freed from all 
taxes; but, though exempted from contributions to the royal ex- 
chequer, continued to be devoted to military services,° which were 
in some instances rendered in person.® Besides, the kings re- 
garded church property as feudal tenures (beneficia), and frequent- 
ly did not scruple to resume them.’ It was stipulated by law 
that the choice of a bishop should be confirmed by the king ;*° but 
- for the most part, the kings themselves appointed to vacant sees.° 


ad Episcopos civitatam. Comp. Hillmann’s Gesch. des Ursprungs der Stande in Deutsch- 
land (2te Ausg. Berlin. 1830), S. 114, ff. 

4 Fredegarii (about 740) chron. c. 4: Burgundiae barones, team Episcopi quam caeteri 
leudes. C. 76: Pontifices caeterique leudes. G.I. Th. Lau on the influence which the 
feudal tenure system has exercised on the clergy and papacy in Ilgen’s Zeitschr. f. Hist. 
Theol. 1841, ii. 82. 

5 Gregor. Tur. v. 27: Chilperieus rex de pauperibus et junioribus Ecclesiae vel basilicae 
bannos jussit exigi, pro eo quod in exercitu non ambulassent. Non enim erat consuetudo, 
ut hi ullam exsolverent publicam functionem. From this it does not follow, as Lobell 
says (p. 330), that in general the church was not required by duty to furnish troops from 
its estates. Rather does the erat show that it had not been usual only till the time of 
Chilperich. Comp. Planck, ii. 222. Montag, i.i. 314. Eichhorn, i. 202, 506, 516. Sugen- 
heim, i. 315. 

§ In a battle against the Lombards (572) there were the bishops Salonius and Sagittarius, 
qui non cruce caelesti muniti, sed galea aut lorica saeculari armati, multos manibus pro- 
priis, quod pejus est, interfecisse referuntur. Gregor. Turon. iv. 43 (al. 37). 

7 Conc. Arvernense (at Clermont) ann. 535, c. 5. Qui reiculam ecclesiae petunt a regi- 
bus, et horrendae cupiditatis impulsu egentium substantiam rapiunt; irrita habeantur 
quae obtinent, et a communione ecclesiae cujus facultatem auferre cupiunt, excludantar. 
Comp. Cone. Parisiens. (about 557) against those qui facultates ecclesiae, sub specie largi- 
tatis regiae, improba subreptione pervaserint. Even jadicial miracles take place, ex. gr. 
when Charibert, king of Paris (562-567) wished to take away a property belonging to the 
church at Tours. Gregor. Tur. de miraculis S. Martini, i. 29. Planck, ii. 206. Hiillmann, 
8. 123, ff. 

8 Conc. Aurelian. v. ann. 549, c. 10: Cum voluntate regis, juxta electionem cleri ac 
plebis—a metropolitano—cum comprovincialibus pontifex consecretur. 

® Ex. gr. Gregor. Turon. de SS. Patrum vita c. 3, de S. Gallo: Tune etiam et Apronculus 
Treverorum episcopus transiit. Congregatique clerici civitatis illius ad Theodoricum regem 
(king of Austrasia 511-534) 8. Gallum petebant episcopum. Quibus ille ait: Abscedite et 
alium requirite, Gallum enim diaconum alibi habeo destinatum. Tune eligentes S. Nice- 
tium episcopum acceperunt. Arverni vero clerici consensu insipientium facto cum multis 
muneribus ad regem venerunt. Jam tunc germen illud iniquam coeperat pullulare, ut 
sacerdotium aut venderetur a regibus, aut compararetur a clericis. Tunc ii audiunt a 
rege, quod 8. Gallum habituri essent episcopum—The Concil. Paris ann. 615, wished 
indeed (can. 1) to have the choice by canons restored; but king Chlotarius II. modified 
that decree in his confirmatory edict, as follows (Mansi, x. p. 543): Episcopo decedente in 
loco ipsius, qui a metropolitano ordinari debet cum provincialibus, a clero et populo eliga- 
tur; et si persona condigna fuerit, per ordinationem principis ordinetur: vel certe si de 
palatio eligitur, per meritum personae et doctrinae ordinetur. Comp. the formulas in 


CHAP. VI. I.—GERMAN NATIONS. § 124. HIERARCHY. 523. 


Synods could not assemble without the royal permission; their 
decrees had to be confirmed by the king, being previously in- 
valid. In the mean time they began to consult about the af 
fairs of the Church, even in the meetings of the king’s vassals 
or council (Placitum regis, Synodus regia, Synodale concilium).’® 
Synods became more rare, and at length ceased entirely. 

This arrangement completed the downfall of the metropolitan 
system, which had been already weakened in many ways. The 
king became the only jadge of the bishops." But in proportion 
as thes rose higher’ in civil relations, the other clergy sank so 
_much the deeper. No free man was allowed to enter the clergy 
without the royal permission.” Hence the clergy were chosen 
for the most part from among the serfs; and on this very ac- 
count the bishop acquired an unlimited power over them, which 
frequently manifested itself in. the most tyrannical conduct.'* 
The administration of justice among the clergy was at first 
conducted according to Roman principles of legislation, as they 
were in force before Justinian (§ 91, note 5, ff.),"* till the Synod 
of Paris (615) gave the clergy the privilege of being brought 
before a mixed tribunal, in all cases which hitherto belonged to 


Marculfi (about 660) Formularum 1. i. c. 5 (in Baluzii Capitularia Regum France. t. ii. 
p. 378): Praeceptum Regis de Episcopatu, c. 6. Indiculus Regis ad Episcopum, ut 
alium benedicat; and in the Formulis Lindenbrogii, c. 4: Carta de Episcopatu (ibid. 
p. 509). Sugenheim, i. 86. Lobell, S. 335. 

10 Just. F. Runde Abhandlung y. Ursprang “der Reichsstandschaft der Bischéfe u. Aebte. 
Gottingen. 1775.4. (The treatise on the same subject, appended, p. 93, is by Herder, and 
is also reprinted in his works on philosophy and history, Carlsruhe edition, Part 13, p. 219.) 
Planck, ii. 126. Hillmann, S. 186, ff. Montag, i. ii. 54. 

11 Gregory Turon. says to king Chilperich : Si quis de nobis, o Rex, justitiae tramitem 
transcendere voluerit, a te corrigi potest: si vero ta excesseris, quis te corripiet? Loqui- 
mur enim tibi, sed si volueris, audis: si autem nolueris, quis te condemnabit, nisi is qui se 
pronunciavit esse justitiam? Gregor. Tur. Hist. Franc. v. 19. 

12 See Marculfi Formularum, lib. i. c. 19 (Baluzii Capital. ii. p. 386), and Bignon’s re- 
marks on it (ibid. p. 901). 

13 Even before this time it appears that monks had been punished with blows by their 
abbots, Cassian. Collat. ii. 16. Palladii Hist., Lausiaca, c. 6, Benedicti Regula, c. 70. 
Bishops were now instructed by synods to punish in this manner also the offenses of the 
inferior clergy. See Concil. Agathense, ann. 506, can.41. Epaonense, ann. 517,c. 45. The 
Concil. Matisconense, i. ann. 581, c. 8, prescribes the Mosaic number uno minus de quad. 
raginta ictus. How the bishops often treated their clergy may be seen from Concil. Car- 
péntoractense (527): Hujasmodi ad nos querela pervenit, quod ea quae a quibuscunque 
fidelibus parochiis conferuntur, ita ab aliquibus Episcopis praesemantur, ut aut param, 
aut prope nihil ecclesiis, quibus collata faerant, relinquatar. Concil. Toletanum, iii. (589) 
capitul. 20: Cognovimus Episcopos per parochias suas non sacerdotaliter deservire, sed 
crude]iter desaevire. 

14 Planck, ii. 161. Montag, i. ii. 106. Schilling de Orig. jurisdictionis eccles. in censig - 
civilibus. Lips. 1825. 4. p. 46. 


524 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 451-622. 


the eivil jadge alone.’® A wider influence was given to the 
bishops by committing to them an oversight of the entire ad- 
ministration of justice,'s while their spiritual punishments were 
made more effectual by connecting with excommunication civil . 
disadvantages also.'’ On the other hand, in the application of 
their discipline they were bound to regard the intercession of 
the king.’* 

Under these circumstances, the popes could not directly 
interfere in ecclesiastical matters; and their communication 
with the established church of the conntry depended entirely on 
the royal pleasure.’ 


15 In the Edictum Clotarii IL., confirming this synod, we have: Ut nullus judicum de 
quolibet ordine clericos de civilibus causis, praeter criminalia negotia, per se distringere 
aut damnare praesumat, nisi convincitur manifestus, excepto presbytero aut diacono. 
Qui vero convicti fuerint de crimine capitali, juxta canones distringantur, et cum pon- 
tificibus examinentur.. Comp. Planck, ii. 165. Rettberg’s Kirchengesch. Deutschl. i. 294. 

16 Chlotarii Regis constitutio generalis, A.D. 560 (in Baluzii Capitularia Regum Franc. 
i. 7. Walter Corpus juris Germ. ant. ii. 2): VI. Si judex aliquem contra legem injuste 
damnaverit, in nostri absentia ab Episcopis castigetur, ut quod perpere judicavit, versatim 
melius discussione habita emendare procuret. Conc. Toletanum, iii. (589) cap. 18: Judices 
locorum vel aetores fiscaliam patrimoniorum ex decreto gloriosissimi domini ndstri simul 
eum sacerdotali concilio autumnali tempore die Kal. Nov. in unum conveniant, ut discant, 
quam pie et juste cum populis agere debeant, ne in angariis aut in operationibus superfluis 
sive privatum onerent, sive fiscalem gravent. Sint enim prospectores episcopi secundum 
regiam admonitionem, qualiter judices cum populis agant ; ut aut ipsos praemonitos corri- 
gant, aut insolentias eorum auditibus principis innotescant. ‘Quodsi correptos emendare 
nequiverint, et ab ecclesia et a communione suspendant. 

17 Decretio Childeberti Regis, a.D. 595: Il—Qui vero Episcopum suum noluerit audire, 
et excommunicatus fuerit, perennem condemnationem apud Deum sustineat, et insuper 
de palatio nostro sit omnino extraneus, et omnes facultates suas parentibus legitimis 
amittat, qui noluit sacerdotis sui medicamenta sustinere. 

18 Conc. Parisiense v. (615) can. 3: Ut si quis clericus—contemto episcopo suo ad -prin- 
cipem vel ad potentiores homines—ambularit, vel sibi patronos elegerit, non recipiatur, 
praeter ut veniam debeat promereri. Chlotar II. repeats in his edict confirming this 
canon, but adds: Et si pro qualibet causa principem expetierit, et cum ipsius principis 
epistola ad episcopum suum fuerit reversus, excusatus recipiatur. Conc. Toletan. xii: ann. 
681, c.3: Quos regia potestas aut in gratiam benignitatis receperit, aut participes mensae 
suae effecerit, kos etiam sacerdotum et populoram conventus suscipere in ecclesiasticam 
communionem debebit: ut quod jam principalis pietas habet acceptum, neque a sacerdoti- 
bus Dei _habeatur extraneum. Confirmed in Conc. Tolet. xiii. ann. 683, c.9. Cf. J.G. 
Reinhard de Jure Principam Germaniae circa sacra ante tempora Reformationis exercito. 
Halae. 1717. 4. p. 359. 

19 Hence Pelagius I. was obliged to use the utmost pains in defending himself to king 
Childebert against the suspicion of heresy which he had drawn on himself by condemning 
the three chapters. -Pelagii I. Ep. 16, ad Childeb. Reg. (Mansi, ix. p. 728): Since one’ 
must give no offense even to the little ones: quanto nobis studio ac labore satagendum 
ast, ut pro auferendo suspicionis scandalo obsequium confessionis nostrae regibus minis- 
tremus; quibus nos etiam subditos esse sanctae Scripturae praecipiunt? Veniens etenim 
Rufinus vir magnificus, legatus excellentiae vestrae, confidenter a nobis, ut decuit, postu- 
favit, quatenis vobis aut beatae recordationis papae Leonis tomum a nobis per omnis 

-congervari significare debuissemus, aut propriis verbis nostrae confessionem fidei destin- 


CHAP. VI. H.—GERMAN NATIONS. § 125. MORALITY. 525 


. 


§ 125. 
MORAL INFLUENCES OF CHHISTIANITY AMONG THE GERMAN NATIONS 


As is usual among rude people when coming into closer con- 
tact with the more enlightened, there proceeded from the Romans, 
then greatly corrupted, pernicious influences rather than culti- 
vation to the Germans, which were exhibited among the latter 
in the roughest form, less hidden in their case by the external 
rites prevalent among the Romans. Christianity, as it was. 
then proclaimed, a series of dogmas and laws, could not re- © 
strain this corruption. Since it offered eaxpdations for all of- 
fenses, along with its prohibitions of them, there was opened up to 
wild barbarity a way of first enjoying the lust of sin, and then 
of procuring exemption from the guilt of it. There was little 
concern for instruction. The public services of religion by means 
of their pomp and the use of a foreign, 7. e., the Latin language, 
awakened obscure feelings rather than right ideas. As the grossest 
notions were entertained of hell, so also were similar ideas pre- 
valent respecting the power of the church, the influence of the 
saints,! the merit of ecclesiastical and monkish exercises, the 
value of alms to the church and to the poor.” These notions 


are. Et primam quidem petitionis ejus partem, quia facilior fuit, mox ut dixit, implevi- 
mus.—Ut autem nullius deinceps, quod absit, suspicionis resideret occasio, etiam illam 
aliam partem, quam memoratus vir illustris Rufinus admonuit, facere. mutavi, scilicet 
propriis verbis confessionem fidei, quam tenemus, exponens. Then follows a diffused 
confession of faith, in which, however, he mentions only four oecumenical’synods, not the 
fifth. At the same time he writes to Sapaudus Episc. Arelat. (Ep. 15,1. c. p. 727) praying, 
ut, si epistola, quaam—ad—Childebertum regem direximus, in qua de institutis beatissi- 
morum patrum nostrorum fidem catholicam nostro per Dei gratiam sermone deprompsimus, 
tam ipsi gloriossimo regi, quam caritati tuae, vel aliis fratribus coépiscopis nostris, placuit, 
rescripto tuae caritatis celerius agnoscamus. Cf. Preuves des Libertés de l’église Galli- 
cane, c. 3.. Planck, ii. 673. 

+ Even under them an aristocracy was formed. When the Huns approached Metz 
(Gregor. Tur. Hist. ii. 6), St. Stephen implored in the heavenly regions the Apostles Peter 
and Paul to protect the town, and received from them the answer: Vade in pace, dilectis- 
sime frater, oratorium tantum tuum carebit incendio. Pro urbe vero non obtinebimus, 
quia dominicae sanctionis super eam sententia jam processit. 

2 Cf. vita S. Eligii Episc. Noviomensis libb. iii. written a.D. 672, by his contemporary 
Audoénus Archiep. Rotomag. in Luc. d’Achery Spicilegium, ed. ii. tom. ii. p. 76, ss. 
Eligius, bishop of Noyon, was considered a man of extraordinary sanctity (Vitae, lib. ii. 
c. 6, p. 92: Huic itaque viro sanctissimo inter caetera virtutum suarum miracula id etiam 
a Domino concessum erat, ut sanctorum Martyrum corpora, quae per tot saecula abdita 


526 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL.—A.D. 451-622. 


were strengthened by legends and miracles, which were certainly 
in part an imposition of the clergy,’ but were far from exerting 
any good moral influence on the people.‘ Crimes of the grossest 
kind were commen among the clergy,’ as well as the kings and 


populis hactenus habebantur, eo investigante ac nimio ardore fidei indagante patefacta 
proderentur: siquidem nornulla venerabantur prius a populo in locis, quibus non erant, et 
tamen quo in loco certius humata tegerentur, prorsus ignorabatur). The more remarkable, 
therefore, is his exhortation, contained in the Vitae, lib. ii. c. 15, p. 96, ss. He first refers 
to the juadgment-day, then to the points of faith, then to the duty of performing opera 
‘christiana, and thus continues: Ille itaque bonus Christianus est, qui nulla phylacteria, 
vel adinventiones diaboli credit.—Hle, inquam, bonus Christianus est, qui hospitibus pedes 
lavat, et tamquam parentes carissimos diligit; qui juxta quod habet pauperibus eleemo- 
synam tribuit; qui ad Ecclesiam frequentius venit, et oblationem quae in altari Deo 
offeratur exhibet; qui de fructibus suis non gustat, nisi prius Deo aliquid offerat; qui 
stateras dolosas et mensuras duplices non habet; qui pecuniam suam non dedit ad 
usuram; qui et ipse caste vivit, et filios vel vicinos docet, ut caste et cum timore Dei 
vivant; et quoties sanctae solemnitates adveniunt, ante dies plures castitatem etiam cum 
propria uxore custodit, ut secura conscientia ad Domini altare accedere possit; qui pos- 
tremo symbolum vel orationem dominicam memoriter tenet, et filios ac filias eadem docet. 
‘Qui talis est, sine dubio verus Christianus est.—Ecce audistis, Fratres, quales sint Chris- 
tiani boni: ideo quantum potestis cum Dei adjutorio laborate, ut nomen christianum nox 
sit falsam in vobis. Sed ut veri Christiani esse possitis, semper praecepta Christi et 
cogitate in mente, et implete in operatione. Redimite animas vestras de poena, dum 
habetis in potestate remedia; eleemosynam juxta vires facite, pacem et charitatem 
habete, discordes ad concordiam ‘revocate, mendacium fugite, perjurium expavescite, fal- 
sum testimonium non dicite, fartum non facite, oblationes et decimas Ecclesiis offerte, 
luminaria sanctis locis juxta quod habetis exhibete, symbolum et orationem dominicam 
memoria retinete, et filiis vestris insinuate —Ad Ecclesiam quoqte frequentius convenite, 
Sanctorum patrocinia humiliter expetite, diem dominicam pro reverentia resurrectionis 
Christi absque ullo servili opere colite, Sanctorum solemnitates pio affectu celebrate, 
proximos vestros sicut vos ipsos diligite, ete—Quod si observaveritis, securi in die judicii 
ante tribunal aeterni judicis venientes dicetis: Da, Domine, quia dedimus: miserere, quia 
misericordiam fecimus; nos implevimus quod jussisti, tu redde quod promisisti. 

3 The Arians blamed the Catholic clergy for this. So Gregorius Turon. de Glor. mart. 
j. 25: Theodegisilus hujus rex regionis, cum vidisset hoc miraculum, quod in his sacratis 
Deo fontibus gerebatur, cogitavit intra se dicens, quia ingenium est Romanorum (Romanos 
enim vocitant homines nostrae religionis) ut ita accidat, et non est Dei virtus. C. 26: Est 
enim populus ille haereticus, qui videns haec magnalia non compungitur ad credendum, 
sed semper callide divinarum praeceptionum sacramenta nequissimis interpretationum 
garrulationibus non desinit impugnare. On the contrary, the Catholics related many 
impostures of miracles wrought by the Arian priests, Gregor. Tur. Hist. ii. 3, de Gloria 
Confess. c. 13. Comp. the miraculous histories in Lébell, p. 274, and the judgment deliv- 
ered respecting them, p. 292. The reason why cures performed at the graves of saints 
should be credible it is impossible to perceive. The presents which those gifted with 
miraculous power had to expect from pious simplicity indaced deception even here. 

* Gregor. de Glor. mart. i. 26. While a person was filling his vessel with that wonder- 
working water from a priest, manum alterius extendit ad balteum, cultrumque furatus 
est.—How holy rites were made instrumental in crime may be seen from the words of the 
monster Fredegundis, the spouse of Chilperich, to the assassins she had hired to murder 
king Sigbert (575. See Gesta Regum Franc. c. 32, in Bouquet Rer. Gall. scriptt. t. ii. p: 
562): Si evaseritis vivi, ego mirifice honorabo vos et sobolem vestram: si autem cor 
rueritis, ego pro vobis eleemosynas — per loca Sanctorum distribuam. 

5 Lébell’s Gregor. v. Tours, 8. 309. 


CHAP. VI. Il—GERMAN NATIONS. § 125. MORALITY. 527 


the people, without shame for them being exhibited,’ while pub- 
lic opinion did not declare against them in a manner conformable 
to the spirit of Christianity.’ The moral influence of Christian- 
ity on the multitude was confined to the external influence of 
church laws and church discipline, so far as these were respected. 
The period of legal restraint, as a preparation for the Gospel, 
had now returned. 

Though every thing heathen was strictly forbidden,* yet secret 
idolatry ® and apostasy from Christianity *° frequently appeared. 
It was still more common for the new Christians to be unable en- 


6 Assassination was an every-day occurrence, and even the clergy were employed as 
instruments: Gregor. Tur. Hist. Franc. vii. 20, viii. 29. Several Frankish kings lived in 
polygamy; Chlotar, for instance, with two sisters, Gregor. Tur. iv.3. Dagobert tres ha- 
bebat ad instar Salomonis reginas maxime et plurimas concubinas. Fredegarii Chronicon, 
c. 60. Lébell 8. 21. i 

7 Thus Gregory Tur. relates, without disguise, the crimes of Chlodowich, and yet he 
passes this judgment on him, ii. 40: Prosternebat enim quotidie Deus hostes ejus sub 
manu ipsius, et augebat regnum ejus, eo quod ambularet recto corde coram eo, et faceret, 
quae placita erant in oculis ejus. Lébell’s (p. 263) exculpation of this judgment is of no 
avail. It is nothing but moral barbarousness, when Gregory admits and disapproves 
the crimes of Clovis, and yet designates him as pious on account of his confession. 
Comp. iii.1: Velim, si placet, parumper conferre, quae Christianis beatam confitentibus 
Trinitatem prospera successerint, et quae haeriticis eandem scindentibus fuerint in 
tuinam.—Hane Chlodovechus Rex confessus, ipsos haereticos adjutorio ejus oppressit, 
regnumque suum per totas Gallias dilatavit: Alaricus hanc denegans, a regno et populo, 
atque ab ipsa, qnod-majus est, vita multatur aeterna. Moral-barbarousness is also shown 
in the sentiments expressed concerning Guntramnus Boso v. 14: Guntchramnus alias 
sane bonus, nam ad perjuria nimium praeparatus erat. Comp. ix. 10: Fuit in actu levis, 
avaritiae inhians, rerum alienaram ultra modum cupidus, omnibus jurans, et nulli promissa 
adimplens.. In like manner, concerning king Theudebert, iii. 25: Magnum se atque in 
omni bonitate praecipuum reddidit. Erat enim regnum cum justitia regens, sacerdotes 
venerans, Ecclesias munerans, pauperes elevans, et multa multis beneficia pia ac dulcis- 
sima accommodans voluntate. Omne tributum, quod in fisco suo ab Ecclesiis in Arverno 
sitis reddebatur, clementer indulsit. Comp. de vitis Patrum, c. 17, § 2: Nam Theude- 
bertus—(cum) multa inique exerceret, et ab eodem (Nicetio) plerumque corriperetur, quod 
vel ipse perpetraret, vel perpetrantes non argueret, etc. 

8 Theodorich’s prohibition, see § 109, note 4. Childebert I. law, de abolendis idolola- 
triae reliquiis A.D. 554, in Baluzii Capitul-i. 5. 

® Even as-late as the time of Gregory-of Tours, an image of Diana was worshiped at 
Treves. (Greg. Tur. Hist. viii. 15.) In Herbadilla at Nantes, about the same time; were 
statues of Jupiter, Mercury, Venus, Diana, and Hercules. (Mabillon Acta SS. Ord. 8. 
Bened. i. 683.) In like manner there was found in Luxovium, when Columbanus came 
thither about 590, imaginum lapidearum densitas, quas cultu miserabili ritaque profano 
Vetusta paganorum tempora honorabant (Jonas in vita Columbani, c. 17, in Mabillon Acta 
SS. Ord. 8. Bened. ii. 13). Martinus Ep. Bracarensis (about 570) wrote de origine 
idoloram (ed. A. Majus Classicorum auctoram, iii. 379), pro castigatione rusticorum, qui 
adhuc pristina paganorum superstitione detenti, cultum venerationis plus daemoniis quam 
Deo persolvunt. The Roman names of deities were frequently transferred to Celtic and 
German deities also; and therefore the peculiar character of this worship can not always 
be perceived. Beugnot Hist. de la déstruction du Paganisme en Occident. (Paris. 1835) 
ii. 307. 10 Conc. Aurelian, ii. ann. 533, ‘can. 20, 


§28 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL.—A.D. 451-622. 


tirely to lay aside reverence for their old gods, and the power they 
were supposed to possess.’ Thus the remains of old pagan su- 
perstition were preserved among the people along with Christian- 
ity.” In civil legislation, all traces of heathenism were likewise 
rejected,’* though the most extended freedom of divorce remained,“ 


11 Thus said the Arian Agilanes, embassador of the Visigoths, to Gregory of Tours 
(Hist. Franc. v. 43): Sic vulgato sermone dicimus, non esse noxium, si inter gentilium 
aras et Dei ecclesiam quis transiens utraque veneretur. 

12 Conc. Turon. ii. ann. 567, c. 22, against the heathen mode of celebrating the Calends 
of January. Then: Sunt etiam, qui in festivitate cathedrae domni Petri Apostoli cibos 
mortuis offerunt, et post missas redeuntes ad domos proprias' ad gentilium revertuntur 
errores, et post corpus Domini sacratas daemoni escas accipiunt. Conc. Autissiodorense 
ann. 578,c. 1: Non licet Kalendis Januarii vetula aut cervolo facere, vel strenas diabolicas 
observare. C. 4: Non licet ad sortilegos vel ad auguria respicere, non ad caragios, nee 
ad sortes, quas sanctorum vocant, vel quas de ligno aut de pane faciunt, adspicere. Cone. 
Narbon. ann. 589, c. 14: against viros ac -mulieres divinatores, quos dicunt esse caragios 
atque sorticularios. C.15: Ad nos pervenit, quosdam de populis catholicae fidei execrabili 
ritu diem quintam feriam, quae dicitur Jovis, multos excolere, et operationem non facere. 
On the celebration of the Kal. Jan. Isidorus Hisp. de Eccles. officiis, i. 40: Tune miseri 
homines, et quod pejus est etiam fideles, sumentes species-monstruosas in ferarum habitu 
transformantur; alii foemineo gestu demutati, virilem vultum effoeminant; nonnulli etiam 
de fanatica adhuc consuetudine, quibusdam ipso die observationem auguriis profanantur : 
perstrepunt omnia saltantium pedibus, tripudiantium plausibus, et quod his turpius est 
nefas, nexis inter se utriusque sexus choris, inops animi, furens vino turma miscetur. On 
belief in auspices and sorcery among the Franks, see Lobell’s Gregor y. Tours, 8. 271. 

13 On the records of ancient national privileges, the Salic law under Clovis, the Bur- 
gundian under King Gundobald, + 516, the Ripuarian under King Theoderich, 511-534, 
the Alemannic under Chlotar II. in 613-628, the Bavarian under Chlotar Il. or Dagobert I 
613-638. See Eichhorn’s Deutsche Staats und Rechtsgesch. i. 220. Editions of the laws 
in Baluzii Capitularia Reg. Franc. t. i. J. P. Canciani barbarorum leges antiquae. 
Venet. 1781-92. 5 tomi fol. Walter Corp. juris Germ. ant. t.i, Cf. prologus Leg. Ripuar. 
(in many editions incorrectly printed as prol. Leg. Sal.) : Theodoricus Rex Francorum, 
cum esset Cathalaunis, elegit viros sapientes;—ipso autem dictante jussit conscribere 
legem Francorum Alamannorum et Bojoariorum, et unicuique genti, quae in ejus potestate 
erat, secundum consuetudinem suam: addiditque addenda, et improvisa et incomposita 
resecavit; et quae erant secundum consuetudinem Paganorum, mutavit secundum legem 
Christianorum. Et. quidquid Theodoricus Rex propter vetustissimam Paganorum con- 
suetudinem emendare non potuit, posthaec Hildebertus rex inchoavit corrigere; sed 
Chlotharius rex perfecit. Haec omnia Dagobertus rex—renovavit, et omnia veterum 
legum in melius transtulit; unicuique quoque genti scriptam tradidit. 

4 By the lex Burgund. tit. 34, c.3, the husband could put away an adulteram, maleficam, 
vel sepulcrorum violatricem without ceremony ; if he does so without these reasons, be 
was obliged to make her indemnification (c. 2, 4, and Lex Bajuvar. tit. vii. c. 14). By 
agreement of both parties, however, marriage could be annulled without any difficulty. 
See the formulae in the formulis Andegavensibus (from the ‘sixth century prim. ed. Ma- _ 
billon Analect. iv. 234) c. 56, and Marculfi.Formularum, lib. ii. c. 30. The libellus repudii 
adopted by Marculf runs thus: Certis rebus et probatis causis inter maritum et uxorem 
repudiandi locus patet. Idcirco dum et inter illo et conjuge sua illa non caritas secundum 
Deum, sed discordia regnat, et ob hoc pariter conversare minime possunt, placuit utriusque 
yoluntas, ut se a consortio separare deberent. Quod ita et fecerunt. Propterea has 
epistolas inter se uno tenore conscriptas fieri et adfirmare decreverunt, ut unusquisque ex 
ipsis, sive ad servitium Dei in monasterio, aut ad copulam matrimonii se sociare voluerit, 
licentiam habeat, etc. 


CHAP. VI. Ill—OLD BRITISH CHURCH. § 126. 529 


and the ordeal™ still continued. The attempt of Gregory the 
Great to adopt into the services of the church particular heathen 
rites, at the time of the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons, stands 
quite alone.’® 


Ill. OLD BRITISH CHURCH. 
§ 126. 


Since the invasion of the Anglo-Saxons, ecclesiastical as well 
as social order had been subverted among the Britons, who 
manfully strove for their freedom.’ But the Irish Church was 
still in a very prosperous state. Their convents were distinguished 
for their discipline and learning,’ as well as their efforts to dif- 
fuse Christianity toward the north. The monk Columba in par- 
ticular (about 565, + 597) converted a great part of the northern 
Picts, became their spiritual leader as abbot of the monastery 


18 Which was used even in questions belonging to Christianity itself. Comp. Can. 
Caesaraugust. § 121, note 4—Gregor. Tur. de Glor. mart. i. 81: Arianorum presbyter 
cum diacono nostrae religionis altercationem habebat. At ille—adjecit dicens: Quid 
longis sermocinationum intentionibus fatigamur? Factis rei veritas adprobetur: succen- 
datur igni aeneus, et in ferventi aqua annulas cujusdam projiciatur. Qui vero eum ex 
ferventi unda sustulerit, ille justitiam consequi comprobatur: quo facto pars diversa ad 
cognitionem hujus justitiae convertatur, etc. 

16 Gregor. M. lib: xi. Ep. 76, ad Mellitam Abbatem (also in Bedae Hist. eccl. Angl. i. 
'30): Cum vos Deus omnipotens ad—Augustinum Episcopum perdaxerit, dicite ei, quid 
diu mecum de causa Anglorum cogitans tractavi, videlicet, qaia fana idoloram destrui in 
eadem gente minime debeant, sed ipsa, quae in eis sunt, idola destruantur. Aqua bene- 
dicta fiat, in eisdem fanis. aspergatur, altaria construantur, reliquiae ponantur: quia si 
fana eadem bene constructa sunt, necesse est ut a cultu daemonum in obsequium veri Dei | 
debeant commutari: ut, dum gens ipsa eadem fans non videt destrui, de corde errorem 
deponat, et Deum verum cognescens ac adorans; ad loca, quae consuevit, familiarius 
concurrat. Et quia boves solent in sacrificio daemonum multos occidere, debet his etiam 
hac de re aliqua solemnitas immutari: ut die dedicationis vel natalitiis SS. Martyrum, 
quorum illic reliquiae ponuntur, tabernacula sibicirca easdem ecclesias, quae ex fanis 
commutatae sunt, de ramis arborum faciant et religiosis conviviis solemnitatem celebrent. 
Nec diabolo jam animalia immolent, sed ad laudem Dei in esum suum animalia occidant, 
et donatori omnium de satietate sua gratias referant : ut, dum eis aliqua exterius gaudia 
veservantur, ad interiora gaudia consentire facilius valeant. Nam duris mentibus simul 
omnia abscidere impossibile esse non dubium est: quia is, qui locum summum adscendere 
nititar, necesse est ut gradibus vel passibus, non autem saltibus elevetur. 

1 Gildas Badonicus (560-590) de Excidio Britanniae liber querulus (in three parts 
historia; epistola; increpatio in clerum), best edited in Thom. Gale Historia Britannicae, 
Saxon. Anglo-Danicae scriptores, xv. Oxon. 1691, thence in Gallandii Bibl. PP. xii. 189. 

2 Jo. Ph. Murray de Britannia atque Hibernia saeculis a sexto inde ad decimum litter- 
arum domicilio, in the Novis commentariis Soc. Reg. Gotting. t. i. comm. hist. et philol. 
Pp» 72, ss. 


VOL. 1.—s4 


530 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. 11.—aA.D. 451-622. 


founded by him on the island Hy (St. Iona), and transmitted 
this relation to his successors.’ 

Close as the union was between the British and Irish Churches, 
they could yet have little connection of importance, on account 
of their remoteness, with other Churches. Hence they had re- 
tained many old arrangements, and developed them in a peculiar 
way, after such usages had been altered in other countries.‘ 


3 Beda Hist. eccl. iii. 4: Habere autem solet ipsa insula rectorem semper Abbatem 
Presbyterum, cujus juri et omnis provincia, et ipsi etiam Episcopi, ordine inusitato, 
debeant, esse subjecti, juxta exemplum primi doctoris illius, qui non Episcopus, sed 
Presbyter exstitit et Monachus. 

* These appear in the following controversy, and relate to (a) the reckoning of Easter. 
The Britons were by no means Quartodecimani, though they were often called so from 
ignorance (ex. gr. Bedae Chron. ad. ann. 4591), and appealed too, themselves, to John and 
the Asiatics (for example, Colman, Beda, H. E. iii. 25). Beda Hist. eccl. iii. 4: Paschae 
diem non semper in luna quartadecima cum Judaeis, ut quidam rebantur, sed in die quidem 
dominica, alia tamen quam decebat hebdomada, celebrabant. Namely, ii. 2: Paschae 
diem a decimaquarta usque ad yicesimam lunam observabant. Quae computatio octo- 
ginta quatuor annorum circulo continetur. The Romans on the other hand (ii. 19), adstrue- 
bant, quia dominicum Paschae diem a quintadecima luna usque ad vicesimam primam 
lunam oporteret inquiri. The difference therefore, was, that the Easter festival fell on 
different Sundays in several years. The cause of this was, that owing to the previous con- 
fusion on the subject, and for the purpose of removing it (see above, § 100, note 13), the 
Aquitanian Victorius first-(457), and afterward the Roman abbott, Dionysius Exiguus (525), 
had made new Easter tables, which, in succession, were brought into use, first in Italy, 
and then in the other western churches (see Ideler’s Chronologie, ii. 275). On the contrary, 
the British church had retained the old cycle of 84 years. The state of the controversy is 
more minutely developed by Jac. Usserius Britannicarum Ecclesiarum antiquitt. Dublin. 
1639. 4. p. 925. \Humphr. Prideaux Connection of Scripture History, ii. 273. Ideler’s 
Chronol. ii. 295. ().The tonsure. The Roman clergy were in coronam attonsi; the 
British, as also the monks elsewhere, in older times, see Paulini Nol. Ep. vii., had the fore 
part of the head bald. »The former called their tonsure tonsuram Petri, and that of the 
Britons tonsuram Simonis Magi (Beda H. E. v.21). Usserii Brit. Eccl. antiqu. p. 921. 
(c) Lanfrancus Episc. ad Terdelxacum Hibern. regem, written 1074 (in J. Usserii Vett. 
epistolarum hibernicarum syll. Dublin. 1632. 4. p. 72), accuses them, quod quisque pro 
arbitrio suo legitime sibi copulatam uxorem, nulla canonica causa interveniente, relinquit, 
et aliam quamlibet, seu sibi vel relictae uxori consanguinitate propinquam, sive quam 
alius simili improbitate deseruit, maritali seu fornicaria lege, punienda sibi temeritate 
conjungit. ‘Quod Episcopi ab uno Episcopo consecrantur. - Quod infantes baptismo sine 
chrismate consecrata baptizantur. Quod sacri ordines per pecuniam ab Episcopis dantur. 
But from these the abuses 1 and 4, which afterward prevailed, may have sprung. We 
have also to direct attention to the following peculiarities of the British-Irish church, 
which are not touched on in the disputes. They had (a) no celibacy of the priests. 
Patrick himself was sprung from priests, see Patricii confessio: Patrem habui Calpurnium 
Diaconum, filium quondam Potiti Presbyteri. Synodus Patricii about 456, can. 6 (in D. 
Wilkins Concilia Magnae Brittanniae et Hiberniae, i. 2): Quicunque clericus ab ostiario 
usque ad sacerdotem—si non more romano capilli ejus tonsi sint (i. e., cut short generally, 
the differences of tonsure arose subsequently), et uxor ejus si nog velato capite ambulaverit, 
pariter a laicis contemnantur, et ab Ecclesia separentur. Synodus Hibern. in d’Achery 
Spicilegium, i. 493: Qui ab accessu adolescentiae usque ad trigesimum annum aetatis 
suae probabiliter vixerit, una tantum uxore virgine sumta contentus, quinque annis Sub- 
diaconus, et quinque annis Diaconus, quadragesimo anno Presbyter, quinquagesimo Epis. 


CHAP. VI. TiI—OLD BRITISH CHURCH. § 126. 531. 


Since the condemnation of the Three Chapters, a great mistrust 
of the Romish orthodoxy had arisen here also.° 

When Augustine formed a new Church with Roman arrange- 
ments among the Anglo-Saxons, he required the British clergy 
(Culdees)® to adopt the Roman ecclesiastical arrangements, 
especially With regard to the mode of reckoning Easter ; and to 
yield to him, as archbishop of Canterbury, the primacy of all 
Britain.7? But the negotiations at two meetings® (603) led to 


copus stet. The Irish Clement defended the marriage of a bishop as late as the eighth 
century. Bonifacii Ep. 67. (4) A peculiar liturgy. Usser. Brit. Eccles. Antiqu. p. 916. 
(c) The monks had a peculiar system of rules. Usser. p. 918.—That the British-Irish 
Church derived its origin from Asia Minor, and had preserved a purer, simpler Christianity, 
are mere empty conjectures, which have been carried to an extravagant length, especially 
by Minter in the Theol. Studien u. Krit. 1833, iii. 744.. The opinion that the Britons, as 
Quartodecimani, had the Asiatic mode of celebrating the passover, an opinion which prin- 
cipally lies at the foundation of that belief, is obviously false. 

5 Comp. § 111, note 25; § 117, note 25; § 124, note 19. Gregorii Magni Ep. ad Episcopos 
Hiberniae, A.D. 592 (lib. ii. Ep. 36): Reducat caritatem vestram tandem integritas fidei ad 
matrem, quae vos generavit, Ecclesiam.—Nam in Synodo, in qua de tribus capitalis actum 
est, aperto liquet nihil de fide conyulsum esse vel aliquatenus immutatum, sed (sicut scitis) 
de quibusdam illic solammodo personis est actitatum.—Quod autem scribitis, quia ex illo 
tempore inter alias provincias maxime flagellatur Italia, non hoc ad ejus debetis intor- 
quere exprobriam, quoniam scriptum est: quem diligit Dominus castigat.—Ut igitar de 
tribus capitulis animis vestris ablata dubietate possit satisfactio abundanter infundi, librum, 
quem ex hac re sanctae memoriae decessor meus Pelagius Papa scripserat, vobis utile 
judicavi travsmittere. Quem si deposito voluntariae defensionis studio, puro vigilantique 
corde saepius volueritis relegere, eum vos-per omnia secuturos, et ad unitatem nostram 
reyersuros nihilominus esse confido. However, at a later period, Columbanus defended, 
witb zeal, the three chapters against Boniface IV. See below, note 13. 

6 Keledei, Kyledei, Latinized Colidei, the British appellation for priests and monks 
(Kele-De, i. e., servus Dei, as elsewhere too, for example, in Gregory the Great, the clergy 
are often called servi Dei). When the Roman regulations were subsequently adopted 
generally in these lands, the name continued to be applied principally to the clergy, who 
in their corporations held fast by the old British modes. It was; however, given also to ail 

_ priests to the time of the Reformation, by those who spoke in British. See Hector Boé- 
thius Hist. Scotorum, lib. vi. p.95: Invaluit id nomen apud vulgus in tantum, ut sacerdotes 
omnes ad nostra paene tempora vulgo Culdei, i. e., eultores Dei, sine discrimine vocitaren- 
tur. Comp. historical account of the ancient Culdees of Iona, and of their settlements in 
Scotland, England, and Ireland, by John Jamieson. . Edinburgh. 1811. 4. J. W.J. Braun 
de Culdeis comm. Bonnae. 1840. 4. 

7 Gregory the Great had conferred this on him (lib. xi. Ep. 65. Beda H. 5. i. 29: Tua, 
vero fraternitas—omnes Britanniae sacerdotes habeat—subjectos. He derived the right of _ 

doing so from this fact, that he héfd the British church, as well as the Anglo-Saxon, to be 
a daughter of the Roman (see note 5). 

8 Respecting them, see Beda H. E.ii.2. The Britons had not only a different mode of 
celebrating the Easter festival, set et alia plurima unitati ecclesiasticae contraria facie- 
bant. Qui cum, longa disputatione habita, neque precibus, neque hortamentis, neque 
increpationibus Augustini ac sociorum ejus assensum praebere voluissent, sed suas potius 
traditiones universis, quae per orbem sibi in Christo concordant, ecclesiis praeferrent, 
sanctus pater Augustinus—finemecit. At the second meeting Augustine said to them: 
Quia in multis quidem nostrae consuetudini, imo universalis Ecclesia, contraria geritis; 
et tamen si in tribus his mihi, obtemperare vultis, ut Pascha suo tempore celebretis, ut 


532 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IX—A.D. 451-622. 


no agreement; they gave rise rather to bitter hatred between 
the two parties.® 


At this time the Irish monk Columbanus came into the 
kingdom of Burgundy (about 590), where he acquired great 
reputation by his strict piety and cultivated mind, and founded 
several convents, particularly that at Luxoviwm (Luxeuil). Here 
he not only introduced a peculiar system of monastic rules, but 
also continued faithfal to the peculiarities of his mother Church, 
and defended the Irish mode of celebrating Easter with great 


zeal.!® At length he displeased King Theodorich II., on account 
of his boldness ; was banished (about 606) ; aboeat some years 
in the conversion of the Alemamni at the lake of Constance; 
then transferred this task to his pupil Gallus; founded the con- 


ministerium baptizandi—juxta morem sanctae Romanae et apostolicae Ecclesiae con 
pleatis, ut genti Anglorum una nobiscum verburz Domini praedicetis ; eaetera quae agitis, 
quamvis moribus nostris contraria, aequanimiter cuncta tolerabimus. ~At illi nil horum se 
facturos, neque illum pro Archiepiscopo habituros esse respondebant. The papal primacy 
was not at all a subject of dispute. The first rank among the bishops was-conceded to the 
popes by the Britons, but they believed so in an erroneous way (see note 5). But the 
- popes themselves did not yet lay claim to a greater ecclesiastical power than that of other 
apostolic sees (see § 117, notes 18-20); and so one appealed against the Britons, not to 
papal authority, but to the statuta canonica quaternae sedis Apostolicae, Romanae vide- 
licet, Hierosolymitanae, Antiochenae, Alexandrinae, to the old councils, and to the uni. 
versalis Ecclesiae catholicae unanimem regulam (see Cummiani Ep. ad Segienum Huen- 
sem Abbatem, in J. Usserii Vett. epistt. hibernicarum sylloge, p. 27, 28). The Britons did 
not consider the pope as the sole successor of Peter, but all bishops. Gildas de excidio 
Britanniae, P. iii. cap. 1, describes bad priests as sedem Petri Apostoli immundis pedibus 
usurpantes (comp. § 94, note 36). That the Britons acknowledged no ecclesiastical power 
of the pope over them, is proved by their opposition to the Roman regulations, an opposi- 
tion which continued in Ireland down to the twelfth century. Spelman (Conc. Brit. i. 108} 
has published for the first time, from a Cottonian MS. in the old British language, the fol- 
lowing declaration of Dinooth, abbot of the monastery of Bangor, which he is said to have 
made to Augustine: Notum sit et absque dubitatione vobis, quod nos omnes sumus et 
quilibet nostrum obedientes et subditi ecclesiae Dei, et Papae Romae, et unicuique vero 
Christiano et pio, ad amandum unumquemque in suo gradu in caritate perfecta, et ad 
juvandum unumquemque eorum verbo et facto fore filios Dei. Et aliam obedientiam, 
quam‘istam, non scio debitam ei, qaem vos nominatis esse Papam; nec esse patrem pa- 
trum vindicari et postulari: et istam obedientiam nos sumus parati dare et solvere ei et 
cuique Christiano continuo. Praeterea nos sumus sub gubernatione episcopi Caerlionis 
super Osca, qui est ad supervidendum sub Deo super nobis, ad faciendum nos servare 
viam spiritualem. It is however spurious. See Dollinger’s Gesch. d. christ]. Kirche, i. 
ji. 218. Stevenson on Bedae H. E. ii. 2, p. 102. 

° Thus Angustine’s successor, Laureastius (Beda, ii. 4), complained that the Scottish 
bishop, Dagamus, ad nos veniens, non solum cibum nobiscum, sed nec in eodem hospitio, 
quo vescebamur, sumere voluit. Comp. Beda, ii. 20: Usque hodie moris est Brittonum, 
fidem religionemque Anglorum pro-nihilo habere, neque in aliquo eis magis communicare 
quam. paganis. 

18 Columbani Epist. i. ad Gregor. Papum (among Gregory’s letters, lib. ix. Ep. 127), 
and Epist. ii. ad Patres Synodi cujasd. Gallicanae. 


CHAP. VI. THI—OLD BRITISH CHURCH. § 126. 533 


vent Bobiwm in a valley in the Apennines in Liguria, where he 
inspired the same desire for learning for which the monks of his 
country were chiefly distinguished.’ He died a.v. 615." His 
letter to Gregory the Great on the subject ef the celebration of 
Easter, as well as that to Boniface IV. against the condemna- 
tion of the three chapters, still attest the free spirit of the Irish 
Church.¥# 


11 Cf. Antiquissimus quatuer Evangelioram Codex Sangallensis, ed. H. C. M. Rettig. 
‘Turici. 1836. 4. praef. Hence-the important discoveries of modern times in the Codd. 
Bobiensibus, at present very mach scattered. See Amad. Peyron de bibliotheca Bobiensi 
comm. prefixed to his Ciceronis orationem fragmenta inedita. Stuttg. et Tubing. 1824. 4. 

12 His life by his pupil Jonas, abbot of Luxovium, in Mabillon Acta Sanct. Ord. Bened. 
ai. 3.. Neander’s Denkwiirdigk. iii. ii. 37, ff. Gu. Chr. Knottenbelt Disp. hist. theol. de 
Solumbano. Lugd. Bat. 1838, 8—His works (regula coenobialis, sermones xvi., epistolae 
vi. carmina iv.), ed. Patricius Flemingus. Lovanii. 1667, recensita et aucta in Gallandii 
Bibl. PP. xii. 319. 

‘3 Ep. ad Gregor.: Forte notam subire timens Hermagoricae novitatis, antecessorum 
et maxime Papae Leonis auctoritate contentus es. Noli te quaeso in tali quaestione hu- 
militati tantum aut gravitati credere, quae saepe falluntur. Melior forte est canis vivus in 


problemate Leone mortuo (Eccl. ix. 4). Wivus namque sanctus emendare potest, quae ab- 


altero majore emendata non fuerint.—non mihi satisfacit post tantos, quos legi auctores, 
una istorum sententia Episcoporam dicentium tantum: “Cum Judaeis Pascha facere non 
debemus.” Dixit hoc olim et Victor Episcopus, sed nemo Orientalium suum recepit com- 
mentum. Epist. 5, ad Bonifacium, iv. cap. 4: Vigila itaque quaeso, Papa, vigila, et iterum 
dico, vigila: quia forte non bene vigilavit Vigilius, qaem caput scandali isti clamant, qui 
vobis culpam injiciunt. C.10: Ex eo tempore, quo Deus et Dei filius esse dignatus est, 

ac in duobus illis ferventissimis Dei Spiritus equis, Petro scilicet et Paulo Apostolis—per 
mare gentium equitans, turbavit aquas multas, et innumerabilium populorum millibus 
qmultiplicavit quadrigas; supremus ipse auriga currus illius, qui est Christus,—ad nos 
usque pervenit. Ex tunc vos magni estis et clari, et Roma ipsa nobilior et clarior est; 
et, si dici potest, propter Christi geminos Apostolos—vos prape caelestes estis, et Roma 
-orbis terrarum caput est ecclasiarum, salva loci dominicae resurrectionis singulari prae- 
rogativa (comp. Firmilianus, Div. I. § 68, note 12. Angustinus, § 94, note 5). Et ideo 
sicut magnus honor vester est pro dignitate cathedrae, ita magna cura vobis necessaria 
est, ut non perdatis vestram dignitatem propter aliquam perversitatem. Tamdiu enim 
potestas apud vos erit, quamdiu recta ratio permanserit: ille enim certus regni caelorum 
clavicularius est, qui dignis per veram scientiam aperit, et indignis claudit. Alioquin, si 
contraria fecerit, nec aperire nec claudere poterit. C.11: Cum haec igitur vera sint, et 
sine ulle contradictione ab omnibus vera sapientibus recepta sint (licet omnibus notum est, 
et nemo est qui nesciat, qualiter Salvator noster sancto Petro regni caelorum contulit 
claves, et vos per hoc forte superciliosum nescio quid, prae caeteris vobis majoris auctori- 
tatis, ac in divinis rebus potestatis vindicatis); noveritis minorem fore potestatem vestram 
apud Dominum, si vel cogitatis hoc in cordibus vestris: quia unitas fidei in toto orbe uni- 
tatem fecit potestatis et praerogativae; ita ut libertas veritati ubique ab omnibus detur, 
#t aditus errori ab omnibus similiter abnegetur, etc. 


534 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. Il.—A.D. 622-726. 


THIRD DIVISION. 


FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE MONOTHELITIC CONTROVERSY, AND 
FROM THE TIME OF MUHAMMED TO THE BEGINNING OF THE CON- 
TROVERSY CONCERNING THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES. FROM 622-726- 





FIRST CHAPTER. 


RESTRAINING OF THE CHURCH IN THE EAST. 


§ 127. 


‘Fhough the Persians tolerated the Nestorians, they hated the 
' Catholic Christians, as was apparent in the war which Kesr@ 
(Chosroes) IT. Purveez carried on against the East Roman em- 
pire from a.p. 604, and especially in the taking of Jerusalem 
(614), On this account the victories of Pieraciius tom 621, 
ending with the dethronement of Chosroes by his son Schirujeh 
(Sirdes) (628) were of importance in relation to the Church. 
Besides, Heraclius brought back the wood of the true cross 
which had been earried off; and instituted a festival in com- 
memoration of it, the oravpwoipoc juépa, festum exaltationis (14th 
of September).’ 

In the mean time, a far more dangerous enemy of the Church 
had appeared in Arabia. Muhammed, in the year 611, began 
to preach Islamism, at first in private, and then publicly among 
the Koreish in Mecca. At first, indeed, he was obliged to give 
way to his enemies (15th July, 622, Hegira),? but gained 
over the city Yatschreb (Medina al Nabi)-in his favor; extended 
his dominion and his doctrines thence, prince and prophet in one 
person, till they spread far into Arabia; at length conquered 
Mecea (630); consecrated the Caaba as the chief temple of 
Islamism; and bequeathed to his successors (Chalifs) Arabia, 


1 Theophanis Chronographia p. 245-273, among other things says, of the conduct of 
Chosrées in the conquered lands, p. 263: "Hva@yxale tovg Xpiotiavoic yevéabar eig tHe 
tov Nectopiov Opnoxetay mpodc 7d AREAL TOV BaciAéa.. 

? Ideler’s Chronologie, Bd. 2,.8. 482, ff 


CHAP. I.—RESTRAINING THE CHURCH IN THE EAST. § 127. 535 


as a country completely subject to their faith and their dominion 
(t 632).8 
Islamism, whose holy writings are contained in the Koran,* 
collected by Abu-Bekr, was, in its chief doctrines, a compound 
of Judaism and Christianity.° But it made the doctrine of the 
infinite sublimity of God its basis, in a way so one-sided that 
an. absolute dependence of man on God resulted from it; and 
“deas of a likeness and an inward union between man and God, 
and consequently the fundamental principles of all the higher 
norality, found no place in the system. By making it a re- 
agious duty to wage war on unbelievers, by its fatalism, and its 
sensual promises, it excited among the rude and powerful peo- 
ple of the Arabs so unconquerable a spirit for war, and so wild 
a desire for conquest,® that the two neighboring kingdoms, the 
Persian and the Byzantine, could not withstand such resistance, 
amid their internal weaknesses. The provinces of the Byzantine 
empire, which lay nearest, were the more easily conquered, in- ' 
asmuch as the greater number of the inhabitants consisted of 
Monophysites who joyfully met the Arabians as their deliverers. 
The conquest of Syria was begun under the first Chaliph Adw- 
Bekr (+ 634), and completed under the second, Omar (639), 
under whom the valiant Amru also overcame Egypt (640). 
Under Othman the Persian empire was conquered (651). Dur- 


3 Abulfeda de vita Muhammedis ed. J. Gagnier. Oxon. 1723. fol. La vie de Moham- 
med par J. Gagnier. Amsterd. 1732. 2 voll. 8, translated into German by Ch. F. R. Vet- 
terlein. Kdéthen 1802-1804. v. Hammer-Purgstall’s Gemiildesaal der Lebensbeschreibungen 
grosser moslimischer Herrscher. Bd. 1. Mohammed d. Prophet. Leipzig. 1837... (Comp. 
Umbreit in the Theol. Studien u. Krit. 1841. i. 212). Gust. Weil’s Mohammed d. Prophet, 
s. Leben u. s. Lehre, aus handschriftl. Quellen u. d. Koran geschopft. Stuttgart. 1843. 
8—On the miracles of Muhammed and his character, see in Tholuck’s vermischten 
Schriften iv1. 

4 Arab. et lat. ed. Lud. Maraccius. Patav. 1698. fol. French par Savary, Paris. 1783. 2 
voll. 8. German by F. E. Boysen, Halle. 1775. 8, by F.S. G. Wahl, Halle. 1828. 8, liter- 
ally translated with annotations by Dr. L.Ullmann. Bielefeld u. Crefeld, 3te Aufl. 1844.8. 

’ G. Weil’s hist. krit. Einleit.in den Koran. Bielefeld. 1844. 8. [English by G. Sale]. — 

5 Weil’s Mohammed, see note 3. Muhammed’s Religion nach ihrer innern Entwicke- 
lung und ihrem Hinflusse auf das Leben der Volker, von. I. I. I. Déllinger. Regensburg. 
1828. 4. Dettinger’s Beitrage zu einer Theologie des Korans, in the Tibingen Zeitschr. 
f. Theol. 1831. iii. 1—W as hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume angenommen? von Abr. 
Geiger. Bonn. 1833. 8.—Maier’s christl. Bestandtheile des Koran, in the Freiburger 
Zeitschr. f. Theol. Bd. 2. Heft.1. 8. 34 (1839). C.F. Gerock’s Darstellung der Christolo- 
gie des Koran. Hamburg und Gotha. 1839. 8—On the relation of Islamism to the gospel, 
in Mobler’s Schriften u. Aufsatzen, herausgeg. v. Déllinger, i. 348. 

§ See a representation of the influence of his faith on the middle ages by K. E. Oelsner. 
frankf. a. M. 1810.8. Muhammed’s religion by Dollinger, see note 5. 


536 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 622-726. 


ing the reign of the Ommeyades, their general Musa, brought first 
the entire northern coast of Africa (707), and then Spain also 
(711), under the Arabian dominion ; while, on the other side, 
the Arabians advanced several times as far as Constantinople, 
and twice besieged the city for a long time (669 till 676, and 
717 till 718). 

Jews and Christians were tolerated by the Arabs on condition 
of paying a poll-tax; and though sometimes severely oppressed, 
yet they were not compelled to change their religion.’ Still, 
however, the advantages held out to those who adopted Islam- 
ism attracted many converts; and thus Christianity not only 
lost all political importance in the conquered provinces, but the 
number of its confessors was always diminishing in proportion 
to that of the Moslems. The catholic patriarchates of Antioch, 
Jerusalem, and Alexandria, remained unoccupied ; for their pos- 
sessors, living in the Greek empire, were merely titulars. 


7 Muhammed was tolerant at first of other religions (cf. Sura, ii. et v.): afterward, how- 
ever, he made it the duty of believers, by the 9th and 67th Surats, to carry on religious 
war, for the purpose of exterminating idolaters and making Jews and Christians tributary 
(comp. Gerock’s Christologie des Koran, S.118). Before this he had granted the Christians 
of some parts of Arabia, as well as the Jews and Sabaeans, letters of freedom, though 
doubtless both the Testamentum et pactiones initae inter Mohammedem et christianae 
fidei cultores (first brought from the East by the Capuchin Pacificus Scaliger, and printed 
at Paris 1630, 4to, and often afterward), and the Pactum Muhammedis, quod indulsit 
Monachis montis Sinai et Christianis in universum (in Pococke Descr. of the Hast, Lond. 
1743. fol. i. 268, translated into German, 2d edition, Erlangen. 1771. 4. i. 393), in which 
distinguished privileges are secured to all Christians, are spurious. The humiliating 
terms under which Omar, at the taking of Jerusalem, 637, allowed freedom of religion to 
the Christians there (Le Beau Hist. du Bas-Empire, xii. 421), express, on the contrary, the 
spirit with which the subjugated Christians were treated at a later time. Cf. Th. Chr. 
Tychsen comm. qua disquiritur, quatenus Muhammedes aliarum religionum sectatores 
toleraverit, in the Commentationes Soc. Reg. Gotting. xv. 152. 


la al 


CHAP. I.—GREEK CHURCH. § 128. MONOTHELITIC CONTROV. 587. 


SECOND CHAPTER. 


HISTORY OF THE GREEK CHURCH. 


§ 128. 


MONOTHELITIC CONTROVERSY. 


Original Documents in the Acts of the first Lateran Synod, a.p. 649 (ap. Mansi, x. 863), 
and the sixth General Council, a-p. 680 (ap. Mansi, xi. 190). Anastasii Bibliothecarii 
(about 870) collectanea de iis quae spectant ad Histor. Monothelit. (prim. ed. J. Sirmond. 
Paris. 1620. 8, in Sirm. Opp. t. iii. in Bibl. PP. Lugdun. xii. 833, ap. Gallandius, t. xiii. 
and scattered in Mansi, t. x. and xi.) 

Historical authorities : Theophanes (comp. the preface to section 2). 

Works: F. Combefisii Hist. haeresis Monothelitarum ac Vindiciae actorum sextae synodi, 
in his Nov. auctarium Patrum. ii. 3 (Paris. 1648). Walch’s Ketzerhist. ix. 3. Nean- » 
der’s K. G. iii. 353. 


A fresh attempt to bring the Monophysites back to the 
Catholic Church was followed by no other consequence than 
that of introducing into the latter a new element of controversy. 

When the Emperor Heraclius (s.p, 611-641) during his 
Persian campaign abode in Armenia and Syria (from 622), he 
thought he perceived that the Monophysites were particularly 
stumbled at the consequence arising from the catholic doctrine, 
viz., two manifestations of will (évépyetac) in the person of 
Christ. Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, having been ap- 
plied to on the point, declared that the adoption of one active 
will, and one manifestation of will, was not inconsistent with 
the received creed of the Church; and therefore the emperor, 
as well as several bishops, decided in favor of this opinion.’ 
But when one of these bishops, Cyrus, whom the emperor had 
appointed patriarch of Alexandria, reunited (633)? the Severians 

1 Cyri Episc. Phasidis Epist. ad Sergium (ap. Mansi, xi. 561), mentions xéAevate of 
Heraclius to Arcadius, archb. of Cyprus, dto évepyeiac éxi Tod deonétov judv ’l..X. wera 
tiv évwow éyeobat KwAtovea. Sergius ad Cyprum (ibid. p. 525), rests on the author- 
ity of Cyril of Alexandria, who speaks of piav Cworotdy évépyetay, and on Mennas’ 
letter to Virgilius, which says, éy Td tod Xpiotob OéAnua Kai piav Cworo.dy évépyerav, 
though he is willing to be instructed by stronger reasons in favor of the contrary opinion. 
More decidedly Theodorus Episc. Pharan. (Fragments, ibid. p. 567, ss.), elvac uiav évép- 
yetay” tavtne 62 rexvitny Kal Onuoupyov Tov Bedv, dpyavoy 62 THY dvOpwrdTyTa. 

2 Cyri Epist. altera ad Sergium (ap. Mansi, xi. 561), with the nine articles of agreement 
appended, p. 563. In the seventh we read: Tdv abrov Eva Xpioréy.xai vidv évepyotpra 
ta Ocompeny kal Gvopdriva wid Oeavdping éEvepyeia, kata Tov év dyiorg Atovicioy 


(Dionys. Areopag. Epist. iv. ad Cajum. Comp. § 110, note 8. The orthodox read xawg 
Gzavdpixh évepyeia). 


538 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IIl.—A.D. 622-726, 


of: that place with the Catholic Church by articles of agreement, 
in which that doctrine of one will was expressed; Sophronius, 
a Palestinian monk, who happened to be there at the time, 
raised the first opposition to this doctrine, which he after- 
ward continued with zeal after he became patriarch of Jerusa- 
-lem (634). Sergius now advised that nothing should be said 
on the disputed point.* Pope Honorius agreed with him, not 
only in this advice, but in the doctrinal view of the matter.’ 
Sophronius was quieted by the incursions of the Arabs; but 
the spark which had fallen on spirits so susceptible of dogmatic 
speculation could not be extinguished. In vain did the emperor 
now issue the *Ex@eoe (638),° composed by Sergius for the 
purpose of putting down the controversy. The west, too, now 
rose up against the new doctrine. The monk Mazimus,' a 


3 Sophronii Synodica ap. Mansi, xi. 461.—His other extant writings (saints’ lives, dis- 
courses, etc.), to which many have been added in the Spicilegium Romanum t. iii. and iv. 
(1840) do not refer to Monothelitism. 

« Sergii Ep. ad Honorium (ap. Mansi, xi. 529), contains the most credible account of the 
beginning of the controversy. He assures Cyrus that his advice was, wyKéte Tod Aovrot 
Tit ovyxupeir, piav } Ovo mpodépery évepyeiag éxi Xpictod Tod Oeod judv’ aAAd waA- 
Aov, xabarep al Gyrat Kai olkovperixai mapadedGnact cbvodot. Eva Kal Tov abrir vidv 
povoyera Tov KopLov Huov "Il. X. tov GAnOiwdy Ocdv évepyeiv duodoyeiv ra Te Oeia Kai 
avOpériva, cai mdoav Oeorpen® kai dvOpwronperng évépyecavy é& évdg Kai Tod abtod 
cecapkapévov Gcod Adyou ddvaipétuc mpoiévat, Kal eic Eva Kai Tov aitiv dvadépebat* 
Oia FO THY mév pide éEvepyeiac Govyv—OopvBeiv Tag Tivdv dKodc, broAauBavérvTur, er’ 
avatpécet Tabtnyv mpodépes0a THv év XptoToe—Fvapévur dbo ddcewy.—oattuac d& Kai 
THY Tov dvo évepyetGy phot ToAAode cKavdaAilery'—éreabat Tatty TO Kal dbo mpEC- 
Bevew OerAjpata évayting mpb¢ GAAnKa éyovtTa,—dio Tove TévavTia BéAovTac eivdyeo- 
Oat, rep dvoceBEc. 

5 Honorii Ep. i, ad Serg. (ap. Mansi, xi. 537). Extracts from the Ep. ii. ad eund., ib. p. 579. 

6 Ap. Mansi, x. 992: “OGev &va lopev vidv tov Kiptov judy "I. X.—xal évic Kat rod 
abtod Tate Gaipata Kai Ta TaOn KnpdTTOMEY, Kai Tacav Beiav Kal dvOpwarivyy évépyetav 
&it Kai tO abTO cecapkopévy TH Abyw mpoovéuouer,—ovdaud¢c ovyxwpodrvrec Tivi TOY 
xavtTov piav 7 dbo Aéyetv } Oiddoxety évepyeiac ei THe Beiac Tov Kupiov évavOpurfceuc, 
GAG paGAdov, kabarep ai &yrat Kai oikovperixai mapadedéxact cbvodot. What follows 
is word for word the same as the passage from Sergii Ep..ad Honor., given in note 4. 
But he continues, ef yap 6 wrapdc Neorépioc xairep O.aipOyv Thy Oeiav Tod Kvpiov évar- 
Opdrnow, Kai dbo eicdywv viovc, dbo OeAjpata Totrwv elreiv od éETOAUNCE, Todvar- 
tiov 6é tavToBovdiay Trav éx’ abrod dvarAatrouévwrv dbo xpoodmwv %ddface, THC 
dvvarov, Tove THY OpOnYv duodoyodvrac rioTiv, Kal Eva vidv Tov Kiptoy Hudy I. X. rav 
GAnbiwov Gedv dofdlovrac dio Kat Tatra évavtia OéAjuata én’ adtod mapadéyecbat ; 
60ev roic ayiowg watpdow év Gract Kai év trobTw KataxoAovbodrTec, Ev OéAnua Tod 
kupiov judy "Il. X.—dpodoyoiuev, oc év pndevi xaipO tig voepOc epvyouévnc abrod 
capkoc Kexwpiopévoc Kal t& oixeiac épuie, évavtiog TO vetmatt TOD Hvapévov aitR Ka? 
bréataclv Geod Adyov, THY Gvotkyy adTHg Toipcacbat Kivgoiv, G27 bréTe Kai oiav Kat 
bonv abroc 6 Bede Adyoc HBod/ETO. 

7 Who is also worthy of notice as a commentator on Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. 
See Neander’s K. G. iii. 344. Ritter’s Gesch. d. christl. Phil. ii. 535. His works, for the 
most part against the Monothelites, were edited by Franc. Combefisius. Paris. 1675. 2 


CHAP. Il—GREEK CHURCH. § 128. MONOTHELITIC CONTROV. 539 


former companion of Sophronius, roused up Africa against it; 
Pope John IV. refused to adopt the Ecthesis ;* and Pope Theo- 
dore excommunicated Paul, patriarch of Constantinople (646). 
Equally unsuccessful was the attempt of Constans IT. (a.p. 
642-668) to restore internal tranquillity by means of the edict 
called Tuzoc (648),° which merely recommended silence on the 
point, without giving a preference to either view; although that 
tranquillity was most desirable in the kingdom so severely op- 
pressed from without.'® Pope Martin I. at the first Lateran 
synod (649),! even ventured to anathematize the doctrine of 
one will, and the two imperial decrees relating to it. Martin I. 
indeed was now deposed, and, together with Maximus, brought 
to Constantinople (653), where both were condemned to end 
their life in exile after much severe treatment.’* This had the 
effect of restoring communion between Rome and Constantinople; 


voll. fol. Prefixed to the first volume is the Greek life of Maximus, important in the his- 
tory of the Monothelites, The doctrines of the Duothelites and Monothelites are most 
clearly represented in contrast, in Maximi Disp: cum Pyrrho, @pp. ii. 159. 

§ Johannis Ep. ad Constantinum Imp. in Anastasii Collectan. ap. Mansi, x. 682. 

9 Ap. Mansi, x. 1029.—"Eyvapev év roAAd Kabeotévar addw Tov iérepov bpG6do5ov 
2adv, d¢ tTivGv pév bv OéAnpa éxi THE Oikovouiag Tod uEyGAov Beod Kad Cwripo¢g HuGy 
Inood dofalévrar, kai tov.aitov évepyetv réte Geia Kai Ta avOpdmiva- GAdwv dé doy- 
Haziovtav dbo OeAqjuata Kai évepyeiac dio éxi tie abti¢e évodpKov Tod Aéyov oiko- 
vouiac’ Kai Tov pév év arrodoyia mpoTiOeuévwr did 7d Ev cpbcuTov brdpyev TOY KUpLoy 
juov’l. X. év db0 Tai¢ dicecw dovyxirwc Kai Gdiaipétwe OéAovTa Kai Evepyodvta TaTE 
Geia nai Ta GvOpariva’ THv dé did Tag Adtatpétwc ev TH adTO Kai Evi TpocbTw ovver- 
Gotcac dtcetc, Kal Tod THY abTov odlecbat Kaiewévery diadopdy, KaTaAAjAwe Kal TpoC- 
Gude Taic dicect Tov aitév Kai Eva Xpiorov évepyeiv Téte Oeia kai ra GvOpdrwa— 
Georifouev, Tove hyeTépove brnkdove—uy adetav &yerv mpoc GAAHAovE ard Tod TapdévToe 
mept évoc OeAhuarocg f utdc evepyeiac, 7 dbo évepyetGv Kai dbo OeAnudtar, oiavdjrore 
mpogépery audio Bytnot, éptv Te, Kai dcAovetxiay. There is said to be 7d mpd tie dve- 
tépa Tov sipnuévav Cythoewy TpoeAGobone giAoverkiag dravTayod gvAayOArat cyjuc. 
Sharp threats against those who disobey. : 

10 The opponents derided the Typus as dvevépynrov wavtTy Kai dvebéAnror, toutéc- 
TW dvovy, kal dyvyov, Kai axivnrov aitov Tov THe dbEn¢ Bedv TOV KdpLtov Fuoy ’I. X. 
édoyudticay, Toig Tév éOvaév dwiyote wapardAgoiwc eiddAotc (Epistola Abbatum et 
Monachorum in Synodo Lateranensi, ap. Mansi, x. 908). dae too Martin in his ie arte 
Ibid. p. 880. 

11 The Acts in Mansi, x. 863. On the bad state of the ‘Letin text see Walch’s Ketzer- 
hist. ix. 222. The twenty canons in the fifth Secretarius, can. x. ss. are directed against 
the Monothelites. Can. xiv. runs thus: Si quis secundum scelerosos haereticos cum una 
voluntate et una operatione, quae ab hereticis impie confitetur, et duas voluntates pariter- 
que et operationes, hoc est, divinam et humanum, quae in ipso Christo Deo in unitate 
salvantur, et a sanctis patribus orthodoxe in ipso praedicantur, denegat et respuit, con-— 
demnatus sit. 

12 See Martini Epist. xv. et xvi. and the commemoratio eorum, quae saeviter acta sunt 
in Martinum, given together from Anastasii Collectan., in Mansi, x. 851. _Neander, iii. 375. 
For an account of the sufferings of Maximus see acts and letters ap. Mansi, xi. 3. Anastasit 
Presb. Epist. ad Theodosium in Opp. Maximi,i. 67. Neander, iii. 386. 


640 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. WL—A.D. 622-726. 


at least for a time,'* though it was broken off again under Con- 
stantine Pogonatus (668-685). To remove this, the emperor 
summoned the sixth general council (680), where Pope Agatho 
triumphed in procuring a confirmation by the synod. of the doc- 
trine of two wills,’ as copiously unfolded by him in an episile, 
after an examination which terminated in peace and order.’* 


13 Namely, between the patriarch Peter and pope Vitalianus. Cf. Acta Synodi oecum. 
vi. Actio xiii. ap. Mansi, xi. 572: “Ere dveyvdobn—éxioroAy Tétpow—rm poe Beradiaviv— 
ao h apyn mvevpatiKic ebopoctyyc xpbsevov quiv To yodupa Tie dueTépag duowdyov Kat 
dylac GdeAgornroe yéyovev. 

44 Agathonis Epistola ad Imperatores ap. Mansi, xi. 233-286.—P. 239: Cum duas 

naturas, duasque naturales voluntates, et duas naturales operationes. confitemur in une 
domino nostro J. Ch., non contrarias eas, nec adversas ad alterutrum dicimus (sicut a via 
veritatis errantes apostolicam traditionem accusant, absit haec impietas a fidelium cordi- 
bus), nec tanquam separatas in duabus personis, vel subsistentiis, sed duas dicimus unum 
eundemque dominum nostrum J. Ch., sicut naturas, ita et naturales in se voluntates et 
operationes habere, divinam scilicet et humanum, etc.—P. 243: Apostolica ecclesia— 
unum dominum nostrum J. Ch. confitetur ex duabus et in duabus existentem naturis— 
et ex proprietatibus naturalibus unamquamque harum Christi naturarum perfectam esse 
cognoscit, et quidgquid ad proprietates naturarum pertinet, duplicia omnia confitetur.— 
Consequenter itaque—duas etiam naturales voluntates in eo, et duas naturales opera- 
tiones esse confitetur et praedicat. Nam si personalem quisquam intelligat voluntatem, 
dum tres personae in s. Trinitate dicuntur, necesse est, ut et tres voluntates personales, 
et tres personales operationes (quod absurdum est et nimis profanum) dicerentur.—Ipse 
dominus noster J. Ch.—in sacris suis evangeliis protestatur in aliquibus humana, in ali- 
quibus divina, et simul utraque in aliis de se patefaciens—Qrat quidem ad Patrem ut 
homo, ut calicem passionis transageret, quia in eo nostrae humanitatis natura absque solo 
peccato perfecta est, Pater, inquiens, si possibile est, etc. (Matth. xxvi. 39.) Et in alio 
loco, Non mea voluntas, sed tua fiat (Luc. xxii. 42). Farther, the passages Phil. ii. 8, 
obediens usque ad mortem; Luc. ii. 51, obediens parentibus; Jo. vi. 38, descendi de coelo, 
at non faciam voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem ejus qui misit me; cf. Jo. vy. 30; alse 
from the Old Testament, Ps. xl. 9, Ut faciam voluntatem tuam, Deus meus, volui; Ps. liv. 
8, voluntarie sacrificabo tibi. Then follow testimonies from the fathers. On the mode in 
which the two wills co-operate Agatho says nothing. 

18 The definitio (6p0c¢) of the sixth council in the actio xviii. ap Mansi, xi. 631, ss.— 
P. 637: “Eva kai tov abtov Xpiorov, vidv Kipiov povoyery, év dbo diceow dovyyxituc, 
atpéntac, axywplotac, adiaipétwcg yvupilopevov, obdayod tho Tév gdcewY dtadopae 
dvypnuévac Oa THY Evwov, cwlouévyc O& waGAAov the idtétyTog éxaTipac dicewc, Kat 
ei¢ &v xpécwrov Kai piay dndctacw avvtTpeyotonc—Kai dbo pvoikdc Cedijoeic Hrot 
OcAnuata év ait, kal dbo gvoikdc évepyeiac ddiaipétuc, dtpéntac, auepiotac, davy- 
xbTw¢ Kata THY TOV Gyiwy TaTépav SiWackadiay Wwoubttw¢s KNpdTTOMEV* Kal dio pév 
ovoid Oerjuara oby brevavtia, uy yévowto, Kabdc oi daeGBeic Epnoay aipetixoi did’ 
éxdbmevov To avOpdriwov abrod OéAnua, Kat wh avtixintoy, } avtTimadaioy [dvtirador], 
waAROv pév obv Kali brotaccduevoy TO Oeiw adbrod Kai mavobevet OeAjuate.—iorep 
yap h abtod aaps, odps tod Oeod Adyou Aéyeta Kal soriv, obTw Kai Td GvoLKdY THE 
sapko¢ abrod OéAnua idvov Tod Geod Adyou Aéyerat Kai Eat, Kaba dyolv abtig: “dre 
karapéBynka éx Tov obpavod, oby iva row Td OéAnua TO éuov, GAAG TO GCéAnua Tow 
méwpavt6¢e we watpdg” (Jo. vi. 38), iduov Aéywv O€Anua adtob TO THE CapKoic, érel Kat 
% cups idia abrod yéyovev’ bv yap tTpérov H Tavayia Kai Guwpoc ep~uyouévy abtod 
oapf Gewbeica (deificata) obk dvypéOn, GAd’ év TO idup adbtrijg dpw te Kai Adyw dié- 
peer, obtw kal Td dvOpdrwvov abrod OéAnua Oewbév od« dvypéOn, céoworar dé? waAAov 
Kata Tov Oeoddyov Tpnyépiov Aéyovtas “To yap éxeivov Gédewv 7d Kata tov owrHpa 
vooiyevoy obd2 brevavriov be® Bewhev, bdov.” Bio dé dvorkdc évepyeiag ddiaipéTuc, 


ae 


CHAP. IlL—GREEK CHURCH. § 129. CONCILIUM QUINISEXTUM. 542 


An anathema was pronounced on all Monothelites,’® and also on 
Honorius ;‘’ and thus Chureh unity was restored in the Roman 
empire. ¢ 


§ 129. 
CONCILIUM QUINISEXTUM. 


At the last two general councils, no attention had been paid 
to the laws affecting the constitution of the Church. To sup- 
ply this defect, and to obtain a complete synodieal code, the 
emperor Justinian IT. (reigned from 685-695, and from 705— 
711), called a new oecumenical council in the Trullus at Con- 


arpéntuc, Gpepiotac, dovyxito¢ év abit6-TO Kvpio uav “I. X. tH GAnOwd Oecd judy 
dogalouev, touréott Geiav évéipyetay Kai dvOpwrivyv évépyevav watad Tov Uenydpov 
Aéovta tpavéotata oackovta~ “ évepyet yap éxatépa opoy weTa THe Garépov Kotvoviac 
Omep tdroy éoynKe, TOD ev Adyov Katepyalouévov TovTo, brep éctt Tod Adyou, Tod dF 
odpuaroc éxtehovvtoc dep éoTi Tov cdpyatoc” (comp. § 89, note 7). 

16 The name MovoGeAqraz first in Johannes Damasc. 

17 John IV., in the Epist. ad Constantin. (note 8), had endeavored to exculpate Honorits 
on the ground that he merely asserted quia in salvatore nostro duae voluntates contrariae, 
id est, in membris ipsius (cf. Rom. vii. 23) penitus non consistant, quoniam nihil vitii 
traxit et praevaricatione primi hominis. So too Maximus in Epist. ad Marinum ap. 
Mansi, x. 687, and in the disputatio cum Pyrrho, ibid. p. 739. In all the measures after- 
ward taken in Rome against the Monothelites, no mention was made of Honorius. On 
the other hand, Synodus oecem. vi. actio xiii. (ap. Mansi, xi. 556), pronounces an anathema 
on Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Petrus, Paulus, Theodorus, bishop of Pharan, cai ‘Ovdpiov 
Tov yevouevov mamav Tho mpecButépag ‘Payne did 76 ebpnKévar hude dia THv yevonévwv 
rap’ aitod ypaypdtwv mpog Lépylov Kata navta TH éxeivov yvouy eakoAevljoavra Kab 
ra abtod dos3y Kupdcavta déynara. This anathema was repeated act. xvi: p. 622, act. 
xviii. p. 655, etc. Leo Il. in his Epist. ad Constant. Imp. in which he confirms the council 
(ap. Mansi, xi. 731): Anathematizamas—nec non et Honorium, qui hance apostolicam 
ecclesiam non apostolicae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immacu- 
latam subvertere conatus est. Cf. ejusd. Epist. ad Episc. Hispaniae ap. Mansi, xi. 1052, 
and ad Ervigium Regem Hispaniae ibid. p. 1057. Also inthe confession of faith sub- 
scribed by the following popes at their accession (liber diurnus cap. ii. tit. 9, professio 2), 
the anathema was pronounced against auctores novi haeretici dogmatis, Sergium, ete — 
una cum Honorio, qui pravis eorum assertionibus fomentum impendit—<Anastasius Bib- 
lioth. Ep. ad Joannem Diaconum (Collectanea ed. Sirmond. p. 3), is the first that endeavors 
again, after the example of John IV., whose letter he reproduced, to excuse Honorius, 
licet huic sexta sancta Synodus quasi haeretico anathema dixerit. But later Catholic 
historians deny even this fact. Platina in vita Honorii I.: Ferunt Heraclium—Pyrrhi— 
et Cyri fraudibus deceptum in haeresim Monothelitarum incidisse—Hos tamen postea 
tanti erroris auctores, hortante Honorio et veram ante oculos literis et nunciis ponente, 
relegavit Heraclius. According to Baronius, the acts of the sixth council have been 
corrupted, and instead of Honorius we should read Theodorus. Bellarmine maintains 
that the letters of Honorius are either spurious or interpolated: According to. Pagi, 
Garnier, the Ballerini, and others, Honorius was not condemned for heresy, but for neg- 
ligence ; and according to Combefisius and others, even with the consent of Pope Agatho. 
Against all these evasions see Richer Historia concil. general. i. 296. Du Pin de Antiqua 
eccl, discipl. p. 349. Bossuet Defensio declar. Cleri Gallic. ii. 128. 


542 : SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IIL—A.D. 622-726. 


stantinople (692)," at which 102 canons were passed, for the 
most part giving legal expression merely to older Church usages, 
and repeating older canons. It appears that thé Greek bishops 
had expressly entertained the design, both here and at Chalce- 
don, of reminding the Roman patriarchs, again exalted by their 
new victory, of the limits of their power. Particularly unac- 
ceptable to the Romans were the six canons concerning the 
Church laws to be esteemed valid,’ the marriage of priests,’ 


1 Names: Concilium Trullanum, Y%évodo¢ wevbéxrn, Conc. quinisextum. The Greeks 
consider it merely as a continuation of the sixth council, and call its decisions xavéve¢ 
the Exrng ovvédov. The Acts are given in Mansi, xi. 921. 

2 Can. ii. confirms 85 canones Apost., while the Roman church, after Dionysius, adopted 
only the first 50. This council also sanctioned, as church laws, the canons of the councils 
of Nice, Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Gangra, Antioch, Laodicea, Constantinople in A.D. 381, 
Ephesus, Chalcedon, Sardica, Carthage and Constantinople, 4.p. 394. Also the canons 
of Dionysius Alexandrinus, Petrus Alex., Gregory Thaumaturgus, Athanasius, Basil the 
Great, Gregory Nyssene, Gregory of Nazianzum, Ampbhilochius of Iconium, Timotheus 
Alex., Cyril Alex., and Gennadius patriarch of Constantineple. Lastly, also; of Cyprian 
and his synod. All other canons are prohibited as not genuine. (Mydevi éSeivar—érépovg 
mapa Tove mpoketpévovce mapadéxecbat Kavévac Wevdentypddwe bx6 Tw cvvTebévrac 
Tov THY GAgOeray KaTnAebery éexiyetpnodrTwr.) In that list, however, many western 
synods, and all decretals of Romish bishops, are passed over. 

3 Can. xiii.: "Exesdy tv ta ‘Paopaior éxxanoia év réfer Kavévog wapadedécbar dté- 
yropev, tobe uéAdovtag Sraxévov 7} mpeoBuvtépov astodcbat yetpotoviag Kaouoroyeiv, 
Oc obkéts Taig abtév ovvdnrovrat yapuetaic: jueic TO Upyaiw éfaxoAovboivrec Kavdve 
The anootoAKne axpiBetag Kai Tafews, TA THY lepGv dvdpdv KaT& vduovg cvvoiKkécta 
kal dxd Tov viv éppGoba Bovdadcueba’ pndapG¢ abtGv tiv mpd¢ yaueTa¢ cvvdderav 
- dtartovtec, } amootepoivtes abtove Tig Kpig GAAHAOUE KaTa ‘KaLpdy Tov TpocjKOVTA 
dutriac. “Qore ek tig Gkto¢ ebpebein xpo¢g yetporoviay irodiaxdvov 7 dtaxdévov 7 mpeo- 
Burépov, obtog undayGe KwAvécbw éxi-to.odrov Pabuov éxBiBalecOar yauerg cvvorx@r 
vowing, unte pay tv TO THE XElpoToviacg KaipO UTatteicbw bmodoyeiv, Ge aGrooThaeTat 
THe vopipov mpog THv olkeiay yapeTnv buriac. iva pH évtedOev tov éx Oeod vouobern- 
bévta Kai ebdoynbévta tH abtod xapovoig ydyov KabvBpilery éxBracbdpev, tie Tod 
ebayyedion duric Bodoncg: & 6 bed Keviev, dvOpwrog uy xwpivétw (Matth. xix. 6) xa? 
Tov drooréAov OiWdcKkovToc Timioy TOV yanov Kai THY KOiTHY duiavToy (Heb. xiii. 4) Kai 
dédecar yuvatki, un Cater Abou (1 Cor. vii. 27).—ypy Tod¢e TH OvotacTnpiw mpocedpetor- 
‘rac év TO Kalip@ Tie Tév Gyiwy petayeipnceac Ey«pateic elvar év waow.—Et ric obv 
TOAUHTOL, Tapa TOE dToaTOALKOvE Kavévag KivotuEvos, TLVa TOY lepauévur, TpecBuTépwv 
gapev } Ocaké6vaerv 7 brodtakéver, dxoorepeiv tie mpo¢ -vdpmtmov yuvaika cvvageiuc Te 
Kat kotvwviac, Kabapeicbw. ‘Qoabtw¢ Kai ei Tic mpecBitepoc 7 OtdKovog THY éavTod 
yuvaixa mpoddcer ebiaBeiac &xBdAret, ddopilécbw, éxipévov O& KaBatpeicbe (cf. Can. 
Apostol. v. § 97, note 9). Bellarmin. de Cler. i. 10, supposes, respecting this subject: 
Tempore hujus synodi (Trullanae) coepit mos Graecorum, qui nunc est.—Besides, can. 
iii. forbids the clergy marrying a second time,:and marriage with a widow. Can. vi. 
forbids marriage after ordination. Can. xii. forbids bishops to remain in the married 
state: Eic yrdowy querépav 720ev, ¢ év. te Adpiky Kat AtBiy kai Erépoic tézxo1¢ of 
Tév éxeice OeodtAéctatoe mpdedpos cvvoiketv tate iWiatg yapuertaic, Kai werd tiv én’ 
abroic mpoeABotcay yetporoviav, ob mapaitobyvtat.—tdosev Gore undaude 7d Tovodtov 
axd Tob viv yivecOat’ toito dé gapyév, obx bx’ GBeTHGEL f dvaTpory TOV dmocTOALKGc 
Tpovevopobernuévwr, GARG THE Cwtnpiac Kal mMpoKoTHC TH¢o éxi TO Kpeittoy TéY Rady 
rpounfobuevot, x. tT. A. Cf. Can. xlviii. According to Zonaras and Theod. Balsamo ad 
Can. Apost. v. these were the first ecclesiastical prohibitions against the marriage of 


? 





, 


‘ +. 
a eee eT ae 





s\ 


: CHAP. IL—GREEK CHURCH. § 130. MONOTHELITISM. 543 


the rank of the patriarch of Constantinople,‘ against fasting 
on Saturday, against the eating of blood and things strangled,® 
and against pictures of the Lamb."— Though the papal legates 
had ‘subscribed them, yet Pope Sergius J. refused to accept 
them. Justinian meant to have him brought to Constantinople, 
but was prevented by the rebellion of the garrison of Ravenna, 
and soon after by his deposition.* Thus this council was ac- 
knowledged only in the east, but not in the west;° and was the 
first public step which led to the separation of the two Churches. 


§ 130. 


FORTUNES OF MONOTHELITISM. 


The emperor Philippicus Bardanes (711-713) revived once 
more the Monothelitic doctrine, and made it the prevailing faith, 
though merely for a short time.’ Only Rome withstood him.’ 
But the Greek bishops were as ready to subscribe a Monothelitic 


bishops, though Justinian had forbidden them by a civil law (Cod. i. iii. 48). Cf Calixtus 
de Conjugio Clericorum ed. Henke, p. 389, ss. 

. 4 Can. xxxvi., referring to Can. Constant. iii. (§ 93, note 9), and Can. Chalced. xxviii. 
(ibid. note 14), and in the same words as the latter. So, too, in Can. xxxviii. the 17th 
canon of Chalced. (ibid. note 3) is repeated word for word. 

5 Can. lv.: "Exedy peuabjxapev, tv tH ‘Pwuaiwr roAee dv Taic dyiae Tij¢ Tecoapa- 
KOOTHC vnstEiate Toic TatTyC CaB Bact vHoTEbeLy Kapa THY Tapadobeioay ExKAnoLacTLKHY 
éxoAovbiav (comp. § 100, note 14) édoke tH ayia cvuvddy, Gore kpareiv Kal éxi TH ‘Papatwy 
éxkAnoia anapacadetrac Tov Kavéva Tov RéyovTa~ “ ei Tig KANpIKOE EdpEbein TH dyia 
KUplLak® vyoTebwr i) TO odBBatov TAY Tod Evdg Kal povov, KaBatpeiaOw ~ ei J2 Aaikdc, 
adopitécOw.” » (Can. Apostol. lxvii.) § Can. Ixvii. 

7 Can. Ixxxil.: "Ev tice tév certév eixévev ypagaic duvoc daxTiAw toi xpodpédpov 
detxvbpevog éyxupdtterat (according to Joh. i. 29)—vdv trod aipovro¢g tHy duaptiav Tod 
Kéopov duvod Xprotod tod Oeod juGv xatd tov avOpdriwov yapaxtipa Kai év.taic 
eixéow &xd Tod viv dvi rod TadaLod duvod dvacTnAodoba: bpilouev. See § 99, note 51. 

8 Cf. Anastas. Biblioth. in vita Sergii. 

® Ap. Beda de Sex aetatibus and Paulus Diac. Hist. Longob. vi. 11, it is called Synodus 
erratica. By degrees however, several of the less offensive canons began to be cited, as 
Canones Syn. vi., those who did so being misled by the example of the Greeks (see note 1). 
Gratian (Decret. P. i. dist. xvi. c. 6) translates a Greek account of this Synod, and then 
naively adds: Ex his ergo colligitur, quod sexta synodus bis congregata est: primo sub 
Constantino Imp., ef nullos canones constituit, secundo sub Justiniano filio ejus, et prae- 
fatos canones promulgavit. Thus, then, he also adopts several of the canons. It was not 
till after the Reformation that the conciliabulum pseudosextum was again discovered. 
Cf. Calixtus, p. 401, ss. . 

1 The chief authority on this subject is the epilogus ad Acta Syn. vi. of the contemporary 
Agathon, deacon and librarian of the church at Constantinople (prim. ed. F. Combefisius 
in the Nov. auctar. _PP. ii, 199, ap. Mansi, xii. 189. ‘Farther, ae p- 319, ss. 
Walch’s Ketzerhist. ix. 449. 

2 Anastasii Bibl. vita Constantini. Paulus Diac. Hist. Totigab: Vi. 33. 


BA4 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IL—A.D. 622-726. 2 


confession of faith as they were to return to orthodoxy at the 
command of the next emperor, Anastasius IT.’ 

In Syria, however, a small party of Monothelites remained 
for a long time. Here all Christian parties had a political im- 
portance. The Jacobites were favorable to the Arabians; the 
Catholics to the Greek emperors, hence called Melchites (from 
302). On the other hand, an independent party had collected 
in mount Libanus, about the monastery of St. Maro, who 
adopted the Monothelitic doctrines, chose for themselves a pa- 
triarch of Antioch (the first was John Maro, + 701), and under 
the name of Maronites* continued to hold the doctrine of one 
will in Christ till the time of the Crusades.° 


3 The miserable spirit of the Greek bishops is particularly expressed in the exculpatory 
letter which John, who had been elevated to the see of Constantinople by Philippicus, 
addressed to Pope Constantine, after the state of things had been entirely changed (ap- 
pended to Agathon’s Epilogus ap. Combefis. p. 211, ss. Mansi, p. 195, ss.). Among 
other things he says: Oidare ydp kai iyeic,—oc ob Aiav avtitixw¢ Kai oKAnpde Exe 
mpoc THY THe eEovciag dvayKnv év Toi¢ ToLobToLg, Gvev Tivd¢g Téxvne Kai TeEpLvotac 


Kabéotnkev ebpapéc: éret Kat Nd@av 6 xpogonryc obk arepixdAuatoy Tov Edeyxov Tov 


mepl Tio wouyelac Te Kai Tod Gévov TpooHyaye TO AaBid, Kairot Kai abtod Tod AaBid 
TpoontiKO TeTiunuévov yapiouati. Kata rovto nai iueic, bxep onaoiv 6 uéyac BactAetoc, 
évdidovar pixpov TO HOet Tod avdpoc KatedeSaucOa, Gore THY év Toic Kalpiote THe KioTewe 
duoroyiav, ei Kal wy AéSectv, GAAdye Taig évvoiaic GuAdtrecfat dmapaBatov. Ob yap 
by 2éEcoww Hyuiv, GAM év mpdypacw 7 aAgGera, 6 Oeiog Vpnyépiog Bod~ Kai wdAww ixavic 
drorov Kai Aiav aicxpov diopilerat, TO wept Tov YOY ouLkpoAoycicbat.—Kara toiroy di 
Tov THe oiKovoutKie Kal Kata Tepictacty cvuBdoews Tpérov Kai TA Aoira Tov yeyevnue- 
var mpoedbeiv. retPopevot, GytéTatol, wy Gobyyvwotoy huiv Tb éxi tobrowe EyAnua 
mpooayayeiy Katadésnobe* GAAG Kav Te THE axpLBeiac quiv jyaptijcCar brovonrat, TH 
mapabéce: TOv ék TOv dyiwy TaTépwv udy olxovoutKGc TpoEAObvTor UroAvécOw avei- 
Ovvov Kai rdone tAcbOepov xataxpicewc. He then appeals to the bishops of the Robber 
Synod at Ephesus, who had condemned Flavian unjustly, cai due év tH xaTa Xadnndova 
ayia ovvédw ApKece TobToLg pbc TEAeiav aroTpOTHY TOD EyKAjpaTOC TIS byLovc duoho- 
yiac cévGeccc, etc., and conclades that he has offered an droAoyiav icyupar Te kai évvopov. 

* Johann, Damasc. Lib. de vera sententia c. 8. Epist. de Hymno trishagio, c. 5. 
Entychii Annal. Alex. t. ii. p. 192. 

5 The modern Maronite writers, namely, Abraham Echellensis in several works, Faustus 
Nayron Diss. de origine et religione Maronitaram. Rom. 1679. 8. _Ejusd. Enoplia fidei 
catholicae. Ibid. 1694. 8. Assemani Bibl. orient. i. 496, have introduced confusion into 
the history of their sect, 1. By asserting that the Maronites were never Monothelites, but 
were always orthodox (in addition to the opposite reasons given by Renaudot Histor. patr. 
Alexandr. p. 149, ss. is the testimony of Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople, about 725, 
de Haeresibus et Synodis, in the Spicilegium Romanum, vii. 65, that the Maronites rejected 
the sixth synod. The grounds given by both parties my be found in M. Le Quien Oriens 
christ. iii. 1. "Walch’s Ketzerhist. ix. 474); 2. By identifying the Mardaites (whose name 
is erroneously derived from 772) with the Maronites. On the contrary, Anquetil Duper- 
ron Recherches sur les migrations des Mardes, ancien peuple de Perse in the Mémoires 
de l’Acad. des Inscript. tome 50, p. 1, has shown that the Mardaites or Mards, a warlike 
people in Armenia, were placed as a garrison on Mount Libanus by Constantine Pogona- 
tas 4.p. 676 (Theophanes, p. 295), but withdrawn as early as 685 by Justinian IL (Theoph. 
p.302,8,.) 





CHAP. DI—WESTERN CHURCH. § 131. ITALY. Fee 


THIRD CHAPTER. 
HISTORY OF THE WESTERN CHURCH. 
§ 131. 


ECCLESIASTICAL STATE OF ITALY. 


important for the history of this and the following period is Anastasii Bibliothecarii (about 
.870) Liber pontificalis, s. vitae Rom. Pontif.t ed. C. Annib. Fabrotus, in the Corp. hist. 
Byz. t. xix. Paris. 1649. fol.; #r. Blanchini. Rom. 1718-35. iv. t. fol. Jo. Vignolius. 
Romae. 1724. 4, with the biographies of the later popes in L. A. Muratorii Rerum Ital. 
scriptor. t. iii. p.i—Liber diurnus Roman. Pontificum, collected about 715, prim. ed. Luc. 
Holstenius. Rom. 1658. 8.2. J. Garnerius. Paris. 1680. 4. (Supplementum in J. Ma- 
billon Museum Italicum, i. i. 32. Paris. 1687. 4) reprinted in Chr. G. Hoffmanni Nova 
scriptorum ac monumentorum collect. t. ii. Lips. 1733. 4. 


The political consequence of the popes* in Italy increased, in 
proportion as the Greek emperors, now pressed by the Saracens 


1 The Liber pontificalis has arisen from former Catalogi Pontificum which we know 
only in part. The first known catalogus, which was composed under Liberius, 354, and 
contains few other notices besides those relating to chronology, furnished ground for subse- 
quently attributing to Damasus the first collection of the vitae Pontificum. The second 
known catalogus under Felix IV. (526-530) has taken the former into itself only in part, 
but enlarged it by other accounts. From these catalogues arose, at the end of the seventh 
century, the first edition of the Liber pontificalis, which concludes with Conon (t 687) and 
is still extant in a Veronese and a Neapolitan MS. (see Pertz in the Archiv. d. Gesellschaft 
fir altere deutsche Geschichtskunde, v. 68). The second edition of it in the Cod. Vatican 
5269, concludes with Constantine (t 714). The lives that follow were appended succes- 
sively by contemporaries, and Anastasius can only have composed the last till Nicolaus I. 
(t 868), and have published the book. anew. in this form. The lives of Hadrian Il. and 
Stephen VI. (f 891), subsequently added, are attributed to one Gulielmus Bibliothecarius. 
From what has been said, it may be seen how even Beda, Rabanvs Maurus, Walafrid 
Strabo, could cite the Liber pontificalis ; and how Pseudo-Isidorus coulduse it. Just as the 
older shorter lives, which merely furnish notices of time, and short accounts of ordinations, 
church buildings, regulations and arrangements of popes, and respecting martyrdoms and 
heresies, have become uncertain by the mixing up of doubtful traditions with true accounts; 
so, on the other hand, the more copious lives, from the end of the seventh century and on- 
ward, have great historical value, as they were written by contemporaries. Cf. Emm. a ~ 
Schelstrate de Antiquis Rom. pont. catalogis, ex quibus Lib. pontificalis concinnatus fuit, 
et de lib. pont. auctore ac praestantia. Jo. Ciampini'Examen Lib. pontif. Fr. Blanchini 
praef. in Lib. pont., all together prefixed to Muratori’s edition. See a description of the 
city of Rome by Platner, Bunsen, Gerhard, and Réstell, i. 206. * 

? This edition, better than that of Garnier, was immediately suppressed by the Romish 
censors. Its history (see especially Baluzii. not. ad de Marca de Concord Sac. et Imp. lib. 
i, c. ix. § 8), and an account of its variations may be seen in Schoepflini Commentt. hist. 
crit. Basil. 1741. 4. p. 499, ss.. In addition to the two codd. used by Holsten and. Gar- 
nier, a third is noticed by Launojus Diss. de Lazari et Magdal. in provinciam adpulsu cap. : 
10, obs. 10. 

3 Honories 1 from, 625-638, Severinus t 640, John IV. t 642, Theodore t 649, Martin L 


VOL, 1. —35 


546 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. lIl.—A.D. 622-720. 


too, were forced to leave to them chiefly the defense of their 
Italian possessions against the Lombards.‘ Still they continued 
subjects of the emperors, had to be confirmed by them in office,° 
and paid them taxes.° While the Monothelitic troubles gave 
the popes an opportunity of appointing a vicar even in Palestine 
now overrun by the Saracens,’ Martin I. was still made to feel 
bitterly the emperor’s power; and Vitalianus was compelled to 
bow to Monothelitism supported by imperial patronage. But 


banished 654, t 655, but even in 654 Eugenius I. was again chosen, ¢ 657, Vitalianus ¢ 672, 
Adeodatus t 676, Domnus I. ¢ 678, Agatho t 682, Leo II. ¢ 683, Benedict II. t 685, John V. 
t 686, Conon ¢ 687, Sergius I. t 701, John VI. t 705, John VII. ¢ 707, Sisinnius + 708, Con- 
stantine t 714; Gregory II. ¢ 731. 

* Comp. above, § 117, note 26. Cf. Liber diurnus cap. ii. tit.iv. Account of the Romans 
de electione Pontificis ad Exarchum: Et ideo supplicantes quaesumus, ut inspirante Deo 
celsae ejus dominationi, nos famulos voti compotes celeriter fieri praecipiat: praesertim 
cum plura sint capitula, et alia ex aliis quotidie procreentur, quae curae solicitudinem et 
pontificalis favoris expectant remedium.—Propinquantium quoque inimicorum ferocitas, 
quam nisi sola Dei virtus atque Apostolorum Principis per suum Vicarium, hoc est Ro- 
manum Pontificem, ut omnibus notum est, aliquando monitis comprimit, aliquando vero 
flectit ac modigerat hortatu, singulari interventu indigef, cum hujus solius pontificalibus 
monitis, ob reverentiam Apostolorum Principis, parentiam offerant voluntariam : et quos 
non virtus armorum humiliat, pontificalis increpatio cum obsecratione inclinat. The popes 
possessed already some small forts; probably erected, in the first place, for protection of 
their patrimony. Thus Anastasius in vita xc. Gregorii II., relates, that the Lombards had 
taken from him the Cumanum castrum, and that the pope having in vain required them to 
surrender it, John, Dux Neapolitanus, retook it from them, and gave it back to the former 
Possessor. Pro cujus redemptione Ixx. anri libras ipse Sanctissimus Papa, sicut promiserat 
antea, dedit. 

5 As had become customary under the Ostrogoth kings. Agatho, however, received 
from Constantine Pogonatus divalem jussionem, per quam relevata est quantitas, quae 
solita erat dari pro ordinatione Pontificis facienda: sic tamen, ut si contigerit post ejus 
transitum electionem fieri, non debeat ordinari qui electus fuerit, nisi prius decretum gene- 
rale introducatur in regiam urbem secundum antiquam consuetudinem, et cum eorum con- 
scientia et jussiong debeat ordinatio provenire (Anastasius in vita Ixxx. Agathonis). 
Benedict II. received from the same emperor the privilege ut persona, qui electus fuerit 
ad Sedem Apost. e vestigio absque tarditate Pontifex ordinetur (Anastasius in vita lxxxii. 
Bened.). Still, however, this did not obviate the necessity of confirmation. See the 
forms in Liber diurnus, cap. ii. de ordinatione Summi Pontificis. Namely, tit. 1. Nuntius 
ad Exarchum de transitu Pontificis. Tit. 2. Decretum de electione Pontificis. (Subscribed 
by totus Clerus, Optimates, et Milites seu Cives). Tit. 3. Relatio de electione Pontificis 
ad Principem. Tit. 4. De electione Pontificis ad Exarchum. On the same subject, tit. 5. 
ad Archiepisc. Ravennae, tit. 6. ad Judices Ravennae, tit. 7. ad Apocrisiarium Ravennae, 
to effect the speedy confirmation. Tit. 8. Ritus ordinandi Pontificis, and tit. 9. Professio 
pontificia. 

& Ex. gr. Anastas. in vita lxxxiv. Cononis : Hujus temporibus pietas Imperialis relevavit 
per sacram jussionem suam ducenta annonae capita (i. e. capitationem), quae patrimonii 
custodes Brutiae et Lucaniae annue persolvebant. 

7 This was done by the popes Theodore and Martin I. during a vacancy in the see of 
Jerusalem, though the patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem protested against it. See lib. 
Stephani Episc. Dorensis ad Synod. Rom. (Mansi, t. x. p. 899), and Martini P. Epist. ad 


Johannem Epise. Philadelphiae (ibid. p. 805, ss.), comp. Walch’s Ketzerhistorie, Th. 9. * 


280, comp. S. 214 and 240. 


— wer 7 a we 1 


=~ a 


CHAP. HlL—WESTERN CHUROH. § 131. ITALY. 547 


by their triumph at the sixth synod the popes strengthened 
anew their ancient calling as defenders of the true faith ;* and 
began at this time to attribute to themselves the title Episcopus 
Universalis, whieh Gregory the Great had declared to be anti- 
christian.° The Quinisextwm could no longer humble them in 
the west. When Justinian II. attempted to bring Pope Ser- - 
gius I. to Constantinople to compel him to subscribe the decrees 
of the Quinisextum, the garrison of Ravenna rose in rebellion,’ 
and soon after (701) the mere suspicion of such an intention 
caused a new uproar against the exarch.' Hence, in order to 
confirm his own authority in Italy, Justinian II. invited Pope 
Constantine to visit him, and overloaded him with exceedingly 
high marks of honor (710).’? The loose connection between 
Rome and the empire was soon after shown in the refusal of 
the former to obey the heretic Philippicus Bardanes (711- 
713).” 

8 oppressed Church of Africa now yielded to the claims 
. of Rome without resistance.‘ On the other hand they still 
met with much opposition in Italy. The bishops of Ravenna 


* Comp. Agathonis P. Ep. ad Imperatores (see above, § 128, note 14) ap. Mansi, xi. p 
239: Petrus spirituales oves ecclesiae ab ipso redemptore omnium terna commendatione 
pascendas suscepit: cujus annitente praesidio haec apostolica ejus ecclesia nunquam a 
via veritatis in qualibet erroris parte deflexa est, cujus auctoritatem, utpote Apostolorum 
omnium principis, semper omnis catholica Christi ecclesia, et universales synodi fideliter 
amplectentes, in cunctis secutae sunt, etc. 

® So first in the Liber diurnus cap. iii. tit: 6, ap. Hoffmann, ii. 95, in the promissio fidei 
Episcopi, which falls between 682 and 685. 

10 Anastasius vit. Ixxxy. Sergii says: Sed misericordia Dei praeveniente, beatoque 
Petro’ Apostolo et, Apostoloruam Principe suffragante, suamque ecclesiam immutilatam 
servante, excitatum est cor Ravennatis militiae, ete. 

11 Anastas. vit. Ixxxvi. Joannis VI. } 

12 Anastas. vit. Ixxxix. Constant.: In die autem, qua se vicissim viderunt, Augustus 
Christianissimus cum regno in capite se prostravit, pedes osculans Pontificis. 

13 Anastasii vit. Ixxxix. Constant.—Pauli Diac. Hist. Longobard. vi. 34. 

14 Comp. the letter of the African bishops to Pope Theodore in the Acts of the Cone. 
Lateran. ann. 649, Secretarius ii. (Mansi, x. 919): Magnum et indeficientem omnibus 
Christianis fluenta redundantem, apud apostolicam sedem consistere fontem nullus am- 
bigere possit, de quo rivuli prodeunt affluenter, universum largissime irrigantes orbem 
Christianorum, cui etiam in honorem beatissimi Petri patrum decreta peculiarem omnem 
’ decrevere reverentiam in requirendis Dei rebus—Antiquis enim regulis sancitum est, ut 
quidquid, quamvis in remotis vel in longinquo positis ageretur provinciis, non prius trac- 
tandum vel accipiendum sit, nisi ad notitiam almae sedis vestrae fuisset deductum, ut 
hujus auctoritate, juxta quae fuisset pronunciato, firmaretur, indeque sumerent caeterae 
ecclesiae velut de nateali suo fonte praedicationis exordium, et per diversas totius mundi 
regiones puritatis incorruptae maneant fidei sacramenta salutis. Taken almost word for 
word from the letters of Innocent I. and Zosimus to the African bishops. Comp. the 
passages § 94, notes 20,.35. 


548 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. I.—A.D. 622-726. 


ventured to build higher claims on the fact that their city was 
the seat of the exarch, in accordance with Grecian principles, 
and even maintained for some time the independent management 
of the Church of the exarchate, when Rome would not accom- 
modate herself to the imperial Monothelitism.** Among the 
Lombards catholicism found many adherents since the time of 
Queen Theodelinda and her son King Adelwald (616-620) ; 
and from the time of King Grimoald (+ 671) became the pre- 
vailing system among them.’ Still, however, they remained 
at variance with the popes;'’ and Upper Italy asserted its 
ecclesiastical independence.'* 'Theological learning continued to 
be in a low state in Italy.** 


§ 132. 


ECCLESIASTICAL STATE OF FRANCE AND SPAIN. 


The superior dignity of the Romish Church was the more 
readily admitted in the west on account of its being the only 


15 Anastas. vit. Ixxix. Domini I. (676-678): Hujus temporibus Ecclesia Ravennatum, 
quae se ab Ecclesia Romana segregaverat causa autocephaliae, denuo se pristinae Sedi 
Apostolicae subjugavit. Vit. 1xxxi. Leonis II. (683-684): Hujus temporibus percurrente 
divali jussione clementissimi Principis restituta est Ecclesia Ravennatis sub ordinatione 
Sedis Apostolicae.——Typum autocephaliae, quem sibi elicuerant, ad amputanda scandala 
Sedis Apostolicae restituerunt. 

16 Though always mixed with idolatry still. See vita S. Barbati (bishop of Benevent. 
t 682) in the Actis Sanct. Febr. iii. 139: His diebus quamvis sacri baptismatis unda 
Longobardi abluerentur, tamen priscum gentilitatis ritum tenentes, sive bestiali mente 
degebant, bestiae simulacro, quae vulgo Vipera nominatur, flectebant colla, quae debite 
suo debebant flectere creatori. Quin etiam non longe a Beneventi moenibus devotissime 
sacrilegam colebant arborem, in qua suspenso corio, cuncti qui aderant terga vertentes 
arbori, celerius equitabant, calcaribus cruentantes equos, ut unus alterum posset praeire, 
atque in eodem cursu retroyersis manibus in corium jaculabantur, sicque particulam modi- 
cam ex eo comedendam superstitiose accipiebant. Et quia stulta illic persolvebant vota, 
ab actione nomen loco illi, sicut hactenus dicitar, Votum imposuerunt. 

17 Planck’s Gesch. d. kirchl. Gesellschaftsverf. ii. 669, ff. © ~~ 

18 It is true that there is also found an indiculum (sacramenti) Episcopi de Longobardia 
in the Liber diurnus cap. iii. tit. 8, but such an oath was taken only by the bishops of the 
Roman patriarchal territory (the middle and south of Italy), who were now under the 
Lombard dominion. 

19 This is clear, particularly from Agathonis Ep. ad Impp. in the Actis Syn. Constantinop- 
ann. 680, Act. iv. (ap. Mansi, xi. 235), where he repeatedly says of the legates whom he 
sends to the council: Non nobis eorum scientia confidentiam dedit, with the general re- 
mark: Nam apud homines in medio gentium positos et de labore corporis quotidianum 
victum cum summa haesitatione conquirentes, qaomodo ad plenum poterit inveniri scrip- 
turarum scientia? 


CHAP. I1i—WESTERN CHURCH. §152. FRANCE. 549 


apostolic Church in that region, as well as the only medium of 
ecclesiastical connection with the east. But the greatest im- 
pression was made by the halo of holiness which surrounded 
that city in the eyes of the westerns; so that every thing pro- 
ceeding from it was regarded as sacred.’ 

The connection of the Frank Church with Rome was slight 
since the time of Gregory the Great. The chief authority lay 
continuously in the hand of the king; and thus all traces of 
metropolitan government had disappeared, Among the political 
disturbances of the French empire in the seventh century, the 
Church also fell into great disorder; the bishops took part in 
the feuds of the nobles; clergy and monasteries became ungov- 
ernable; and. the better few, who wished to call attention to 
morality and discipline, were persecuted.2 The robbing of 
Churches was not uncommon; and Charles Martel (major- 
domus from 717-7 741) even distributed ecclesiastical revenues 
and offices in usufruct to valiant soldiers (as beneficium, preca- 
rium).° 


1 For example, Anastas. vit. xc. Gregor. II. after the account of the great victory gained 
by Duke Endo of Aquitania over the Saracens at Toulouse (721): Eudo announced it to 
the. pope, adjiciens, quod anno praemisso in benedictionem a praedicto viro eis directis 
tribus spongiis, quibus ad usum mensae (perhaps the altar?) Pontificis apponuntur, in hora, 
qua bellum committebatur, idem Eudo Aquitaniae princeps populo suo per modicas 
partes tribuens ad sumendum eis, nec unus vulneratus est, nec mortuus ex his, qui par- 
ticipati sunt. 

2-So Leodegar, bishop of Autiin, who was put to death by the major-demus Ebriin, 678. 
Aigulf, abbot of a monastery at Lerins, wished merely to keep order among his monks, 
but was therefore abused, banished, and, in 675, murdered. See the lives of both in Mabil- 
lon Act. SS. Ord. Benedicti, saec. ii. p. 679, ss. 656, ss. 

3. Comp. above, § 124, note 7. Bonifacius Ep. 132 (ed. Wirdtwein Ep. 51), ad Zachari- 
am, about 742: Franci enim, ut seniores dicunt, plus quam per tempus Ixxx: annorum | 
Synodum non fecerunt, nec Archiepiscopum habuerunt, nec Ecclesiae canonica jura alicui 
fundabant vel renovabant. Modo autem maxima ex parte per civitates Episcopales sedes 
traditae sunt Laicis cupidis ad possidendum, vel adulteratis Clericis, scortatoribus, et 
publicanis saeculariter ad perfruendum. De Majoribus domus regiae libellus vetusti 
scriptoris, in du Chesne Hist. Francorum scriptt. t. ii. p. 2: Carolus—res Ecclesiarum 
propter assiduitatem bellorum laicis tradidit. Hadriani P. I. Ep. ad Tilpinum Archiep. 
Rhem. in Flodoardi Hist. eccl. Rhem. lib. ii. c. 17, and ap. Mansi, xii. p. 844. _Hincmar 
Epist. vi. ad Episc. diocesis Remensis, c. 19: Tempore Caroli Principis—in Germanicis © 
et Belgicis ac Gallicanis provinciis omnis religio Christianitatis paene fuit abolita, ita ut, 
Episcopis in paucis locis residuis, Episcopia Laicis donata et rebus divisa fuerint; adeo 
ut Milo quidam tonsura Clericus, moribus, habitu et actu irreligiosus laicus Episcopia, 
Rhemorum ac Treviroram usurpans simul per multos annos pessumdederit, et multi jam 
in orientalibus regionibus (East Franks) idola adorarent et sine baptismo manerent. Cf. 
Chronicon Virdunense (written about 1115) in Bouquet Rer. Gall. et Franc. script. t. iii. p. 

364. But for this even the clergy abused him after his death. Boniface wrote to Athel- 
bald, king of Mercia, to deter him from a similar course (Baronits ann. 745 no. 11) :: Carolus 
quoque Princeps Francorum, multorum monasteriorum eversor, et ecclesiasticarum pe- 


550 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. III.—A-D. 622-726. 


The Spanish Church appears to have gradually relaxed in 
humble subjection to the Roman see since catholicism had pre- 
vailed among the Goths likewise; although that subordination 


had been shown as long as the Church stood under the pressure - 


of Arianism.‘ Here also the king, as feudal lord of the bishops, 
was the head of the Church ;° but at the same time the bishops 
attained to a peculiarly great importance, both by their weighty 
voice in the election of the king, and by the necessity of sup- 
porting a tottering throne by means of spiritual authority.® 


cuniarum in usus proprios commutator, longa torsione et verenda morte consumtus est. 
(This passage, however, is wanting in the editions of Boniface’s letters, ap. Serarius; Ep. 
19). A hundred years later, on the contrary, Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, in the pro- 
logus in vitam b. Remigii (written about 854), and still more fully in his Epist. Synod? 
Carisiacensis ad Ludov. Germ. Regem, a.p. 858 (Capitularia Caroli Calyi, tit. xxvii. c. 7, 
ap. Baluzius, ii. p.108. Bouquet, l. c. p. 659): Carolus Princeps, Pipini Regis pater, qui 
primus inter omnes Francorum Reges ac Principes res Ecclesiarum ab eis separavit atque 
divisit, pro hoc solo maxime est aeternaliter perditus. Nam &. Eucherius Aurelianensium 
Episc.—in oratione positus ad alterum est saeculum raptus, et inter caetera, quae Domino 
sibi ostendente conspexit, vidit illum in inferno inferiori torqueri. Cui interroganti ab 
Angelo ejus ductore responsum est, quia Sanctorum judicatione, qui in futuro judicio cum 
Domino judicabunt, quorumque res abstulit et divisit, ante illud judicium anima et corpore 
sempiternis poenis est deputatus, et recipit simul cum suis peccatis poenas propter pec- 
cata omnium, qui res suas et facultates in honore et amore Domini ad Sanctorum loca in 
luminaribus divini cultus, et alimoniis servorum Christi ac pauperum pro animarum 
suarum redemtione tradiderant. Qui in se reversus S. Bonifacium et Fulradum, Abbatem 
monasterii S. Dionysii, et summum Capellanum Regis Pipini ad se vocavit, eisque talia 
dicens in signum dedit, ut ad sepulchrum illius irent, et si corpus ejus ibidem non reperis- 
sent, ea quae dicebat, vera esse concrederent. Ipsi autem—sepulchrum illius aperientes, 
visus est subito exisse dracc, et totum illud sepulchrum interius inventum est denigratum, 
ac si fuisset exustum. Nos autem ilos vidimus, qui usque ad nostram aetatem durave- 
runt, qui huic rei interfuerunt, et-nobis viva voce veraciter sunt festati quae andierunt 
atque viderunt. Cf. Acta SS. Februarii, t. iii. p. 211, ss. 

* Planck’s Gesch. d. christl. kirchl. Gesellschaftsverfassung, Bd. ii. 692, ff. On the 
Romish vicars in Spain who appeared during the Arian period, see P. de Marca de Con- 
cordia Sac. et Imp. lib. v. c. 42. Caj. Cenni de Antiquitate Eccl. Hispanae (2 tomi. 
Romae. 1741. 4) i. 200. 

5 The king called councils, Cenni, ii. 89, and was supreme judge, even of bishops, ii. 153. 

& Planck, ii. 235, 246. Gregor. Tur. Hist. Franc: iii. c. 30: Sumpserant enim Gothi hanc 
detestabilem consuetudinem, ut si quis eis de regibus non placuisset, gladio eam adpete- 
rent: et qui libuisset animo, hunc sibi statuerent regem. Comp. in particular, Concil. 
Tolet. iv. (633) cap. 75 (ap. Mansi, x. p. 637, ss.): Post instituta quaedam ecclesiastici 
ordinis—postrema nobis cunctis sacerdotibus sententia est, pro robore nostrorum regum et 
stabilitate gentis Gothorum pontificale, ultimum sub Deo judice ferre decretum. A long 
admonition to maintain fidelity to the kings. Then: Nullus apud nos praesumtione reg- 
num arripiat, nullus excitet mutuas seditiones civiuam, nemo meditetur interitus regum: 
sed et defuncto in pace principe, primates totius gentis cum sacerdotibus successorem 
regni concilio communi constituant. Then follows the solemn condemnation of every one 
who should resist : Anathema sit in conspectu Dei Patris et angelorum, atque ab ecclesia 
catholica, quam profanaverit perjurio, efficiatur extraneus, et ab omni coetu Christianoruam 
alienus cum omnibus impietatis suae sociis, etc: Finally: Anathema sit in conspectu 
Christi et.apostolorum ejus, atque ab‘ecclesia cath. etc. as above. Finally, Anathema sit 


4 
3 r+ She 
=> ye 
Fa tal ae 


,' + 


/ 


Pe ee oe 


’ 


Ns Titty ll aii 


pa he aailnins i ‘ = eS = 
ee ee ee ee ee ee Peed 


CHAP. IIL—WESTERN CHURCH. § 132. SPAIN. 55%, - 


Thus the connection with Rome ceased.’- The bishop of the 
royal metropolis, Toledo, was primate of the Spanish Church,’ 
and raised himself toa self-reliance, which exhibited itself very 
decidedly even in opposition to the Roman see.? King Witizia 
(701-710) at length broke off all connection with it ;° but this 


in conspectu Spiritus Sancti, et martyrum Christi, etc——But further on also: Te quoque 
praesentem regem, futurosque sequentium.aetatum principes humilitate qua debemus de- 
poscimus, ut modergti et mites erga subjectos existentes cum justitia et pietate populos a 
Deo vobis creditos regatis—Ne quisquam vestrum solus in causis capitum aut rerum sen- 
tentiam ferat, sed consensu publico, cum rectoribus, ex judicio manifesto delinquentium 
culpa patescat.—Sane de futuris regibus hance sententiam promulgamus, ut si quis ex eis 
contra reverentiam legum, superba dominatione et fastu regio, in flagitiis et facinore, sive 
cupiditate crudelissimam potestatem in populis exercuerit, anathematis sententia a Christo 
domino condemnetur, et habeat a Deo separationem atque judicium, etc. 

7 Cenni, ii. 46, 62, 154. 8 Cenni, ii. 197. 

° From Gregorii M. lib. vii. Ep. 125, 126, it is plain that the same sent the pallium to 
Archbishop Leander of Seville. It may be that the latter was already dead (¢ 599) when 
it came to him, so that for this reason no trace is found of his receiving it, as Cenni, ii. 
225, supposes. That little value generally was attributed to the Roman pallium, is proved 
by the fact that the succeeding archbishops did not seek for it, and that, before the inva- 
sion of the Saracens, no other Roman pallium came to Spain, Cenni, ii. 252.—That self 
reliance and independence are expressed particularly in the explanations of Archbiskop 
Julian of Toledo, respecting tne remarks made by Benedict II. against his confession of 
faith, in Conc. Toletan. xv. (688) ap. Mansi, xii. 9. They conclude with the words, p.17: 
Jam vero si post haec et ab ipsis dogmatibus patrum, quibus haec prolata sunt, in quo- 
cumque [Romani] dissentiant, non jam cum illis est amplius contendendum, sed, majorum 
directo calle inhaerentes vestigiis, erit per divinum judicium amatoribus veritatis responsio 
nostra sublimis, etiamsi ab ignorantibus aemulis censeatur indocilis. 

10 Witizia is a remarkable example of the manner in which the clergy, treating of the 
historical persons of the middle ages, handled those who displeased them. The oldest 
writer of his history, Isidorus Pacensis (about 754. Chronicon in Espafia Sagrada por Hen- 
rique Florez, t. viii. p. 282, ss.), speaks in highly commendatory terms of his reign. He 
notices the ecclesiastical regulations made under his sanction in two places; first at the 
Aera, 736 (698, p. C.), when Witiza reigned along with his father Egica, p. 296: Per idem 
tempus Felix, urbis Regiae Toletanae Sedis Episcopus, gravitatis et prudentia excellentia 
nimia pollet, et Concilia satis praeclara etiam adhuc cum ambobus Principibus agit. (To 
these councils also belongs’ Conc. Toletan. xviii. (701) at which, perhaps, the decrees above 
alluded to were enacted. Cf. Roderici Ximenii Hist. Hispan. iii. c. 15: Hic [Witiza] in 
ecclesia S. Petri, quae est extra Toletum, cum episcopis et magnatibus super ordinatione 
regni concilium celebravit, quod tamen in corpore canonum non habetur.) The second 
passage of Isidorus, p. 298: Per idem tempus (toward the end of Witiza’s reign) divinae 
memoriae Sinderedus urbis Regiae Metropolitanus Episcopus sanctimoniae studio claret : 
atque longaevos et merito honorabiles viros, qaos in suprafata sibi commissa Ecclesia 
repetit, non secundum scientiam zelo sanctitatis stimulat (probably he was zealous against 
unchastity) atque instinctu jam dicti Witizae Principis eos sub ejus tempore convexare 
non cessat. The first aspersions of Witiza appear in the Frankish Chron.- Moissiacense 
(about 818) ad ann. 715, in Pertz Monumenta Germaniae Hist. i. 290: His temporibus in 
Spania super Gothos regnabat Witicha.—lIste deditus in feminis, exemplo suo sacerdotes 
ac populam loxuriose vivere docuit, irritans furorem Domini. Sarraceni tunc in Spania 
ingrediuntur. In Spain these aspersions first appear in the Chron. Sebastiani Episc. Sal- 
manticensis seu Alphonsi III. Regis (about 866 in Espafia Sagrada, t. xiii.) They have 
been extended and exaggerated by Rodericus Ximenius, archbishop of Toledo, in the his- 
toria Hispania (A.D. 1243) lib. iii. c. 15-17, and Lucas, Episc. Tudensi, in the continuation 


552 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IIl.—A.D. 622-726: 


step was attended with no important consequence, inasmuch as 
an incursion of the Saracens took place soon after. 


§ 133. 
ECCLESIASTICAL CONDITION OF THE BRITISH ISLANDS. 


Among the Anglo-Saxons, Christianity had at first to strug- 
gle against heathenism with various fortune, but was _ after- 
ward diffused by degrees in all the Anglo-Saxon states. Those 
who preached it were for the most part Roman missionaries ; 
Northumberland alone being converted by the Scottish clergy, 
who introduced here the regulations of the ancient British 
Church. Old controversies between them and the Roman-En- 
glish clergy were soon renewed; however, after a conference 
between both parties at the synod of Strenechal (now Whit- 
by, not far from York, Synodus, Pharensis 664), the king of 
Northumberland, Oswin, decided in favor of the Roman ordi- 
nances.'!_ And since the well-ordered schools of the Irish monas- 


of Isidore’s Chronicon (a.D. 1236). After relating many infamous deeds of Witiza, it is 
stated by Rodericus, l. c. c. 16, in Andr. Schotti Hispania illustrata (Francof. 1603. 4 tomi, 
fol.) ii. 62: Verum quia ista sibi in facie resistebant [clerici], propter vexationem pontificis 
[Episc. Toletani] ad Romanum pontificem appellabant. Vitiza facinorosus timens, ne 
suis criminibus obviarent, et populum ab ejus obedientia revocarent, dedit licentiam, immo 
praeceptum, omnibus clericis, ut uxores et concubinas unam et plures haberent juxta libi- 
- tam voluptatis, et ne Romanis constitutionibus, quae talia prohibent, in aliquo obedirent, 
et sic per eos populus retineretur. Lucas Tudensis (ibid. iv. 69): Et ne adversus eum in- 
surgeret s. ecclesia, episcopis, presbyteris, diaconibus et caeteris ecclesiae Christi minis- 
tris carnales uxores lascivus Rex habere praecepit, et ne obedirent Romano Pontifici sub 
mortis interminatione prohibuit. .The state of the matter appears to have been this. 
Witiza, in conjunction with Siuderedus, archbishop of Toledo, opposed licentiousness in 
priests, and perceived that it could be eradicated only by allowing them to marry. The 
latter-had been general among the Arians, and abolished when they joined the Catholic 
Church (cf. Cone. Tolet. iii. ann. 589, c. 5): Compertum est a sancto Concilio, Episcopos, 
Presbyteros et Diaconos venientes ex haerese carnali adhuc desiderio uxoribus copulari : 
ne ergo de cetero fiat, ete. Thus the prejudicial alteration, which had been introduced for 
one hundred years by the prohibition of the council, could be clearly noticed. Hence Witi- 
za allowed priests to marry, and declared the Roman decretals, forbidding it, to be of no 
binding force. Comp. a defense of King Witiza by Don Gregorio Mayans y Siscar, trans- 
lated into German, from the Spanish, in Biisching’s Magazin fiir die neue Historie und 
Geographie, i. 379, ff.. Aschbach’s Gesch. der Westgothen, S. 303, ff. 

1 Bedae Hist. eccl. gentis Anglorum, iii. 25. The remarkable conclusion of the dispute 
between the Scotch bishop, Colman, and the English presbyter, Wilfrid. The former ap- 
pealed to Anatolius and Columba, the latter to Peter, and closed with the passage, Matth. 
xvi. 18: Tu es Petrus, etc. King Oswin then said: Verene, Colmane, haec illi- Petro 
dicta sunt a Domino? Qui ait: vere, Rex. At ille: habetis, inquit, vos proferre aliquid 


: 
ied 
> 


CHAP. III.—WESTERN CHURCH. §133. BRITISH ISLANDS. 653 


teries always attracted many young Anglo-Saxons to Ireland,’ 
and by this means might become dangerous to the Roman reg- 
ulations, Rome sent forth into England, for the purpose of giv- 
ing a check to this influence, the learned Theodore, born at 
Tarsus, as archbishop of Canterbury (668-690), and the abbot 
Hadrian, who every where strengthened the Roman ordinances, 
and, by the erection of schools, rendered those journies to Ireland 
superfluous.’ No less active in favor of the Romish Church was 
also Wilfrid, a noble Anglo-Saxon,! who, even. when a young 
priest, had turned the scale at the synod of Whitby, had been 
afterward for a time bishop of York; and, driven thence, had - 
preached, not without #ruit, to the Frieslanders; and, lastly, had 
converted Sussex (about 680, t 709), where heathenism remained 
longest among the Anglo-Saxons. 


tantae potestatis vestro Columbae datum? At.ille ait: nihil. “Rursum autem Rex: si 
utrique vestrum, inquit, in hoc sine ulla controversia consentiunt, quod haec: principaliter 
Petro dicta, et ei claves regni caelorum sunt datae a Domino? Responderunt: etiam 
utique. At ille ita conclusit: et ego vobis dico, quia hic est ostiarius ille, cui ego contra- 
dicere nolo, sed in quantum novi vel valeo, hujus cupio in omnibus obedire statutis, ne 
forte me adveniente ad fores. regni caelorum, nion sit qui reserat, averso illo qui claves 
tenere probatur. Haec dicente Rege faverunt assidentes quique sive adstantes, majores 
una cum mediocribus, et abdicata minus perfecta institutione, ad ea quae meliora cog- 
noverant, sese transferre festinabant. 

2 Beda, iii. 27: Multi nobilium simul et mediocrium de gente Anglorum,—relicta insula 
patria, vel divinae lectionis vel continentioris vitae gratia ilo secesserant. Et quidam 
quidem mox se monasticae conversationi fideliter mancipaverunt, alii magis circameundo 
per cellas magistrorum lectioni operam dare gaudebant: quos omnes Scoti libentissime 
suscipientes, victum eis quotidianum sine pretio, libros quoque ad legendum et magisterium 
gratuitum praebere ‘curabant. Cf. Murray in Nov. Comm. Soc. Gott. (see above, § 126, 
note 3) t. i. p. 109. 

3 Beda, iv. 2. (Theodorus) peragrata insula tota, quaquaversum Anglorum gentes 
morabantur,—rectum vivendi ordinem, ritum celebrandri pascha canonicum, per omnia 
comitante et cooperante Adriano disseminabat. Isque primus erat archiepiscopus, cui 
omnis Anglorum ecclesia manus dare consentiret. Et quia literis sacris simul et saecu- 
laribus, ut diximus, abundanter ambo erant instructi, congregata discipulorum caterva, 
scientiae salutaris quotidie flumina irrigandis eorum cordibus emanabant: ita ut etiam - 
metricae artis, astronomicae et arithmeticae ecclesiasticae disciplinam ter sacrorum 
apicum yolumina suis auditoribus contraderent. Indicio est, quod usque hodie supersunt 
de eorum discipulis, quilatinam graecamque linguam aeque ut propriam, in qua nati sunt, 
norunt. Neque unquam prorsus ex quo Britanniam petierunt Angli, feliciora faere tem- 
pora, dum et fortissimos christianosque habentes reges cunctis barbaris nationibus essent 
terrori, ef Omnium vota ad nuper audita caelestis regni gaudia penderent: et quicunque — 
lectionibus sacris cuperent erudiri, haberent in promtu magistros qui docerent: et sonos 
cantandi in ecclesia—ab hoc tempore per omnes Anglorum ecclesias discere coeperunt, etc. 

* Vita S. Wilfridi by the contemporary Eddius (Aiddi), cognomento Stephanus (cantandi 
magister in Northumbrorum Ecclesiis, invitatus de Cantia a reverendissimo viro Wilfrido, 
Beda Hist. ecel. i iv. 2), in Th. Gale Historiae Britannicae, Saxonicae, Anglodanicae Scrip- 
tores xy. Oxon. 1691. fol. p. 40. Lappenberg’s Geschichte von England. Bd. 1 (Hamburg. 
1834), 5. 167. 


654 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. IIL—A.D. 622-4726. 


It is true that the original missionary dependence of the An- 
glo-Saxon Church on Rome gradually ceased; here also the 
kings put themselves in possession of the same ecclesiastical 
privileges, which kings asserted in the other German kingdoms ;° 
the Latin language, connecting with Rome, was obliged to allow 
along with itself, even in the Liturgy, the Anglo-Saxon tongue ;° 
but notwithstanding such considerations, Rome continued to 
maintain an authority in the Anglo-Saxon Church which it did 
not now exercise in any other German Church.’ 

Emulation with the Irish institutions for educational purposes 
also introduced into the Anglo-Saxon schools a very great activ- 
ity. Not only did they distinguish thengselves by the study of 
the Greek language, which Theodore had established in the 
whole of the west, but its stimulus unquestionably contributed to 
the development of the Anglo-Saxon dialect, already even as a 
written language.* At the end of this period, England possessed 
the most learned man of the west, the Venerable Bede, a monk 
in the monastery of Peter and Paul at Yarrow (ft 735).° The 


5 Theodore was still in Rome when nominated Archbishop of Canterbury, after Wighard, 
who had been sent thither to be ordained, had died (Beda, iii. 29, iv. 1). But the decision 
of Rome in favor of Wilfrid, who had been expelled from the see of York (Eddius in vita 
Wilfridi, ap. Gale, i. 67), was not regarded; Wilfrid, on the contrary, was put in captivity 
(l. c..p. 69). The bishops were for the most part appointed by the kings (Lappenberg’s 
Gesch. v. England, i. 183), who had also the power of confirming the decrees of synods, 
and the highest judicial power over the clergy (Lappenberg, i. 194). 

® Lappenberg, i. 196. 7 Planck’s christ. kirchl. Gesellschaftsverf. ii- 704, ff. 

8 Caedmon, a monk in the monastery of Streaneshalh t 680 (Beda, iv. 24, non ab homini- 
bus,—sed divinitus adjutus gratis canendi donum accepit), author of poetical paraphrases 
of biblical books, especially of Genesis. See Caedmon’s metrical paraphrase of parts of 
the Holy Scriptures, i in Anglo-Saxon, by Benj. Thorpe. London. 1832. 8.—Aldhelm, abbot 
of Malmesbury, afterward bishop of Sherborne (f 709), translated the Psalms (King Alfred 
said of him, according to Wilhelm. Malmesb. ap. Gale, i. 339: Nulla unquam aetate par 
ei fuit quisquam poésin anglicam posse facere, tantum componere, eadem apposite vel 
canere vel dicere). As early as the year 680, there existed a version of the four gospels 
by Aldred. (Selden Praef. ad Scriptt. Hist. Angl. ed. Twysden, p. 25): also Ekbert, bishop 
of Lindisfarne, translated the gospels; Bede, the gospel of John.—Beownulf, a heroic poem, 
received its present form at this time from the hands of Christians (ed. G. F. Thorkelin, 
Kopenh. 1817. 4, translated into German by L. Ettmiller. Zurich. 1840.8). In like man- 
ner, about the year 700, there existed a poem (by Aldhelm?) descriptive of the conversion 
of the Myrmidonians by the apostle Andrew, and another on the finding of the cross by the 
empress Helena, composed by one Cynewulf. See Andrew and Hlene, published by J. 
Grimm. Cassel. 1840. 8vo. 

® As a proof of his wide-spread fame is adduced Sergii P. I. Ep. ad Ceolfridum (abbot 
of the cloister there, A.D. 700, quoted in Guilelmi Malmsburiensis (ft 1143) de Reb. gestis 
Regum Angl. i. 3: Hortamur Deo dilectam bonitatis tuae religiositatem, ut, quia exortis 
quibusdam ecclesiasticaram causarum capitulis (without doubt the cloister in question), 
non sine examinatione longius imnctescendis, opus nobis sunt ad conferendum artis litera- 
tura imbuti,—absque aliqua immoratione religiosum famulum Dei (Bedam) yenerabilis 


oe oa 


< 


CHAP. IIL—WESTERN CHURCH. § 133. BRITISH ISLANDS. 555 


new branch of ecclesiastical literature founded by John the Fast- 
er, in his penitential law-book, had been first adopted in the west 
by the British Church,” and, after its example, was also used 
among the Anglo-Saxons by Z'heodore, Bede, and Egbert of 
York (+ 7 67)." On the other hand, these libelli poenitentiales 


do not seem to have as yet obtained currency apy where out of 
England. 

Endeavors were always proceeding from the Anglo-Saxon 
states to reconcile the Britons and Irish with the Roman Church 
as the common mother-church,’* and to unite them with the 
Church of the Anglo-Saxons. But although the abbot Adam- 


monasterii tui ad veneranda limina Apostolorum principum dominorum meorum Petri et 
Pauli, amatorum tuorum ac protectorum, ad nostrae mediocritatis conspectam non moreris 
dirigere. Stevenson, however, in his Introduction prefixed to Bedae Opp Hist. tom. }, 
p. x., shews that the word Bedam is wanting in an old MS. of this epistle, and was in- 
serted by William of Malmesbury, but that Bede could not have been called at that time. 
—Bede’s writings embrace Natural Philosophy, Chronology, Philosophy, Grammar, As- 
tronomy, Arithmetic, etc., and give a view of all the learning of the time. In particular, 
Historia ecclesiast. gentis Anglorum libb. v., from Julius Cesar till 731 (ed. Fr. Chiffletius. 
Paris. 1681. 4. Joh. Smith. Cantabrig. 1722. fol.). De sex aetatibus mundi liber. Lives 
of English monks. (Opera historica ad fidem Codd. MSS. rec. Jos. Stevenson, t. ii. Lond. 
1838-41. 8.) Numerous commentaries on the Holy Scriptures, homilies, letters, etc. Opp. 

ed. Basil. 1563. t. viii. fol. Colon. 1688. t. iv. fol. ed. J. A. Giles, 5 voll. Lond. 1843, 8. H. 

Gehle Disp. de Bedae Ven. vita et scriptis. Lugd. Bat. 1838. 8. 

10 These libelli poenitentiales were constantly altered, that they might € continue useful 
in practice: on the other hand, the earlier were transferred more or less verbally into the 
later. Hence hardly any one has come down to us entirely free from alterations; and in 
many cases it is difficult to decide to what author an extant poenitentiale is to be attributed. 
Among the Irish the oldest known was that of Columbanus, a part of which was published 
in Colomb. Opp. ed. Patric. Fleming. Loyan. 1667. (See F. F. Mone’s Quellen u. 
Forschangen zur Gesch. d. teutschen Literatur u. Sprache. Bd. 1. Aachen u. Leipzig. 
1830. S. 494), another by Cumin (tf 661), an extract from which was published by Fleming, 
1 c..and Bibl. PP. Lugd. xii. 42 (see Mone, S. 490), and which is the same work as the 
so-called Canones,poenitentiales Hieronymi (Opp..ed. Martianay, v. 5) (Mone, 8. 497). 

11 Theodori Liber poenitentialis, printed in its oldest existing form in the ancient laws 
and institutes of England, London. 1840. fol. and taken from this in Dr. F. Kuntsmann’s 
latein. Ponitentialbiicher der Angelsachsen. Mainz. 1844. 8. 43. Theodori capitula de 
redemptione peccatorum (ap. Kuntsmann, P. 106), give the oldest instructions how to 
purchase penitential seasons by singing, prayer, and by money.—Beda de remediis 
peccatorum (ap. Kuntsmann, 8. 142), elaborated, perhaps, by Egbert; and therefore 
Bede’s canons are also occasionally attributed to the latter, and the Ballerini de Ant. col- 
lectionibus canonum p. iv. c. 6, have assigned the whole to him.’ Egbert’s Poenitential, 
Latin and Anglo-Saxon, is given in Wilkin’s Conc. M. Brit. i. A fourth book was pub- 
lished by Mone, 1. c. i. 501. Comp. Ballerini, 1. c. Wasserschleben’s Beitrage zur 
Gesch. u. Kenntnisz der Beichtbiicher in ‘dess. Beitr. zur Gesch. d. vorgratianischen 
Kirchenrechtsquellen. Leipzig. 1839. 8.-78. 

12 Hence the fable which first appears in Beda, i. 4, that the British king, Lucius, in 
the second century, applied to Pope Eleutherus, obsecrans, ut per ejus mandatum Chris- 
tianus efficeretur, and that the British church was thus founded. Of. D. Thiele de Ecclesiae 
britann. primordiis partt. 2 (Halae. 1839. 8.) i. 10, ii. 14. 


556 _ SECOND PERIOD.—DIV. HL—A.D. 622-726 


nan, at the beginning of the eighth century, had labored to effect 
this object, not without success among the Britons and in the 
south of Ireland,’* and the monk chert had gained over the 
northern Picts to the side of Rome,’*. yet the breach was not 
removed by this means.’* It was not till the decline of the 
Trish Chureh amid the continued civil. wars,'® that, toward the 
end of the eleventh century, Dublin first came to attach itself 
to the archbishop of Canterbury ;'’ afterward the archbishop of 
Armagh, Malachy ({ 1148), was active in favor of Rome ;’* till 
at last Ireland and Wales were conquered by Henry II.,’° and 


13 Beda, v. 16. 14 Beda, v. 23. 

15 Beda, v. 24, says, AR he speaks of the condition of his times (735): Britones 
maxima ex parte domestico sibi odio gentem Anglorum et totius catholicae Ecclesiae 
statum pascha minus recto moribusque improbis impugnant. About the same time 
Gregory III. (731-741) warns the German bishops of the British errors. See an epistle 
among those of Boniface Ep. 129: Gentilitatis ritum et doctrinam, vel venientium sso 
abjiciatis. 

16 Bernardus Claraevall. de vita S. Malachiae, c. 10 (Opp. ed. Montfaucon, i. 673) : Mos 
pessimus inoleverat quorundum diabolica ambitione procerum, sedem sanctam (Arma- 
chanam) obtentum iri haereditaria successione. Nec enim patiebantur episcopari, “nisi 
qui essent de tribu et familia sua.—Et eo usque firmaverat sibi jus pravum—generatio 
mala,—ut etsi interdum defecissent clerici de sanguine illo, sed Episcopi nunquam. 
Denique jam octo exstiterant ante Celsum viri uxorati, et absque Ordinibus, literati tamen. 
Inde tota illa per universam Hiberniam—dissolutio ecclesiasticae disciplinae, censurae 
enetvatio, religionis evacuatio—Nam-—-sine ordine, sine ratione mutabantur et multplica- 
bantur Episcopi pro libitu Metropolitani, ita ut unus Episcopatus uno non esset contentus, 
sed singulae paene Ecclesiae singulos haberent Episcopos. Hence also, perhaps, may be 
explained the statement of Ekkehardus (ft 1070, a monk in St. Gallen, to which place 
many Irish came at that time) in his Liber benedictionem: In Hibernia Episcopi et Pres- 
byteri unum sunt (ex MS. in Arx Gesch. v. St. Gallen, i. 267). 

17 Lanfranc, a.D. 1074, consecrated Patricius, who was chosen bishop of Dublin, and 
obtained from him the promise of canonical obedience. All subsequent bishops of Dublin 
were consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury. See J. Usseri Veterum epistolaruam 
hibernicarum sylloge, Dublinii. 1632. 4. p. 68, 118, 136, but for this very reason hated by 
the other Irish bishops. After this Gillebertus Ep. Lunicensis (of Limerick) endeavored 
as well as Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, to induce the other Irish also to come to the 
same conclusion, L c. p. 77, ss. The church of Waterford also attached itself to England 
1096, p. 92. : 

38 He stood in close connection with St. Bernard, and died in a journey to Rome in 
Clairvaux. Bernard wrote on this lib. de vita et rebus gestis S. Malachiae (Opp. ed. 
Mont. i. 663). Malachy was legatus sedis Apost. per totam Hiberniam, but did not desire 
the pallium. In Clairvaux he educated young Irishmen, and then founded by their 
instrumentality, Cistercian monasteries in Ireland (vita Mal. c. 16. _ Usserii Vett. epist. 
hibern. p. 102). Immediately after him came the first pallia to Ireland. See Chronica de 
Mailros (ed. Edinburgi. 1835. 4) p. 74: Anno McLi Papa Eugenius quatuor pallia per 
legatum suum Johannem Papirum transmisit in Hiberniam, quod nunquam antea pallium 
delatum fuerat. 

19 Pope Hadrian IV. made a gift of Ireland, a.p. 1155, to the king. See the Bull in 
Usserii Vett. epist. hib. p. 109; comp. Johannis Sarisburiensis (who, as royal embassador, 
had prevailed on the pope to do so) Metalogicus lib. iy. infine. Giraldi Cambrensis (about 
1190) Expugnatio Hiberniae (in the Historicis ae Normannicis. Francof. 1602. fol.) 


&. » 





CHAP. II1.—WESTERN CHURCH. § 134. GERMANY. 557 


thus the complete connection of the British and Irish Church 
with Rome was effected. 


§ 134. 


SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY IN GERMANY. 


Schmidt's Kirchengesch. iv. 10. Neander’s Kirchengesch. iii. 72. Rettberg’s Gesch. d. 
Kirche Deutschlands, Bd. i. Géttingen. 1845. 


The attempts to convert the Germans, whether made by 
Franks, or by Irish and Anglo-Saxons, were as yet but partially 
successful. 

The Irish Kilian* lost his life in the cause at Wurzburg 
(689); as also Emmeram® at Ratisbon (654). In Bavaria, 
however, better success attended Rupert,? bishop of Worms, 
who baptized. Duke Theodore II. ({ 696), and founded the 
Church of Salzburg (f 718); as also Corbinian,' who gathered 
a church in Freisingen (} 730). 

On the other hand, Anglo-Saxon monks endeavored to spread 
Christianity among the kindred north-German races. Wilfrid 
was the first who preached among the Frieslanders (t 677).° 


M. Chr. Sprengel’s Gesch. v. Grossbritannien. Th. 1 (a continuation of the Universal His- 
tory of the world, part 47) S.433.—Wales was conquered since 1157. See Giraldi Cambr. 
Descriptio Cambriae (in the above quoted collection). Sprengel, 1. c. p. 378. 

1 Acta SS. ad d. 8 Jul. C. F. Hefele’s Gesch. d. Hinftihrung des Christenth. im sud- 
westl. Deutschland. Tibingen. 1837. 8. 372. 

2 See life of Aribo, fourth bishop of Freisingen (+753). See Acta SS.add.22 Sept. B.A. 
Winter’s Vorarbeiten zur Beleuchtung d. baier.u. ésterr. Kirchengesch. (2 Bde. Miinchen. 
1805, 1810), ii. 153. According to Winter, ii. 169, he was-not a native of Pictavium, in 
West Franconia, as has been usually assumed, but of Petavio, now Petau, in Pannonia. 

3 Act. SS, ad d. 27 Mart. Rupert came to Bavaria at the time of a Frankish King 
Childebert. According to the Salzburg tradition, the king was Childebert IL, at the end: 
of the sixth century; but, according to Valesius, Mabillon, Pagi, and especially Hansiz 
Germania sacra, ii. 51) Childebert TIIL., a hundred years later. On the contrary, M. Filz, 
a Benedictine, and Professor in Salzburg, has reasserted, conformably to the ancient tradi-. 
tion, that Rupert came to Bavaria, A.D. 580, and died in 623. See his treatise on the true 
period of the apostel. Wirksamkeit d. heil. Rupert in Baiern. Salzburg. 1831. 8. The- 
same writer in the Anzeigelblatt. d. Wiener Jahrb. d. Literatur, Bd. 64 (1833), S. 23. Bd. 
80 (1837), 8.1. In the mean time, however, the younger age of Rupert is maintained by 
Blumberger, Benedictine in Gottweih. in the Vienna Jahr. Bd. 73. S. 242. u. Bd. 74. S. 
147, and by Rudhart in the Munich gel. Anzeigen. Bd. 5. 1837. S. 587. 

* See life of Aribo, bishop of Freisingen. See Acta SS. ad d. 8 Sept. 

5 See § 133, note 4. Beda Hist. eccl. v. 19. Eddius ap. Gale p. 64. H. J. Royaards 
Geschiedenis der invoering en vestiging van het Christendom in Nederland 3te Vitg. 
Utrecht. 1844. p. 127. 


® 


558 SECOND PERIOD.—DIV: IIL—A.D. 622-726. 


Afterward Willebrord, first bishop of Wiltaburg (Utrecht) from 
696-739 labored, along with his associates,* with much suc- 
cess, under the protection of the Franks, among the West 
Frieslanders and the surrounding territories; but the East 
Frieslanders remained steadfast to paganism. The Saxons even 
murdered the two Ewalds who visited them ;7 and Swidbert,® 
who had at first been received among the Boructiarii, was after- 
ward obliged to retreat, when they were subdued by the Sax- 
ons ; and obtained from Pipin an island in the Rhine to estab- 
lish a convent on it (Kaiserswerth) + 713. 

6 Beda Hist. eccl. v. c. 10, ss. Villebrord’s life by Alcuin in Mabillonii Act. SS. Ord. 
Bened. Saec. iii. P. i. p.601. Royaards, p. 159. 


7 Beda, v.c.11. Acta SS. ad.3 Oct. L.v. Ledebur das Land u. Volk der Bructerer. 
Berlin. 1827. 8.277. Royaards, p. 201. 


§ Beda,'v.c.12. ActaSS.add.1Mart. Ledebur, S. 280. Royaards, p. 197. 


Se 
22 ce - 
ae ae oni 





ADDITIONAL REFERENCES AND NOTES, 


BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 





§ 1. The Idea of the Church.—Prof. Leo, of Halle, in his Ferienschriften, Halle, 1847, con- 
tends for the Celtic origin of the word kirche, church. In the Celtic, cyrch or cylch des- 
ignates the central point, around which something is) gathered, the place of assemblage. 
Kurtz, Kirchengeschichte, Bd, 1, § 1, remarks, ‘‘ that the introduction of the word among 
the Anglo-Saxons, and through English missionaries among the Germans,” is the most 
probable hypothesis. For the idea of the church, cf. Dr. A. Petersen, Die Idee d. Kirche. 
3 Thle. 1843-45.—Rev. Arthur Litton, Church of Christ in its Idea, ete. Lond: 1851.— W. 
Palmer, on the Church, 2. 1841.—The Princeton Repertory, 1846, 1853, 1854.—Field, B. of 
the Church (1628), new ed. by R. Eden, 4.8. 1853.—Munchmeyer, d. Dogma von der sicht- 
baren und der unsichtbaren Kirche. 1854.—J. Muller, d. unsichtbare Kirche, Deutsche 
Zeitschrift. _1851.—Scherer, ’Eglise. 1844. 

§ 2. On the general subject of this section, the most Semcicoat recent work is, Baur’s 
Epochen der kirchlichen Geschichtschreibung, Tubingen, 1852, written to sustain the 
views of the Tubingen school.—Hagenbach, Neander’s Services as a Church Historian, 
transl. in Bib. Sacra, vol. viii. 1851.—Niedner, Zeichnung des Umfangs ftir d. Inhalt d. 
Gesch. d. christ]. Religion: in Studien u, Kritiken. 1853. Selle 

W. Brown, History of the Propagation of Christianity among the Heathen since the 
Reformation. New edition, 3.8. Edinb. 1854,—J, Wigwers, Geschichte der evangelischen 
Mission, 2.8. 1844-45.—Origin and History of Missions. By T. Smith and J. O. Choules, 
2,4. Bost. 1838.—-Henrion, histoire générale des missions catholiques, depuis le xiii. 
siécle. Paris, 1844. 2. 8. 

The State in its Relations with the Church. By W. E. Gladstone, Esq. 4th ed. 2. 8. 
1841.—Dr. Pusey on the Royal Supremacy. 1849. 

The History of Doctrines. — Dr. Hagenbach’s History of Doctrines, transl. by C. W. 
Buck, 2.8. 2d edition. Edinb. 1853, from the third German edition.—Munscher’s Ele 
ments of Dogmatic History, transl. by Jas. Murdock, D.D. 12. New Haven, 1830.— Theod. 
Kliefoth, Einleitung in d. Dogmengesch. 8, 1839.—Of Meier’s Dogmengesch. a new edi- 
tion appeared in 1854, edited by G. Baur.—Dr. F. Ch. Baur, Lehrbuch d. christlichen 
Dogmengeschichte, 8. Stuttg. 1847.—Dr. H. Klee (Bonn) Lehrbuch der Dogmengesch. 
2.8. Mainz. 1837, ’8, from the Roman Catholic point of view.—Marheinecke, Vorlesungen 
uber d. Dogmengesch.: a posthumous publication, 8. 1849.—L. Noack, Dogmenge: 
Erlangen, 1853.—Carl Beck, Christ]. Dogmengesch. Weimar, 1848.—Other earlier works 
are, Bertholdt, 1823; Ruperti, 1830; and Lentz, 1834.—Vorlander, Tabellen d. Dogmen- 
gesch. nach Neander. Hamb. 1835, ’7, to A.D. 604. On the history of doctrines, Nean- 
der’s General History is very full. 

On the general subject of the History of Doctrines and its historians, compare Kling, in 
Studien u. Kritiken. 1840, 1841, 1843; Niedner, zur neuesten Dogmengesch. u. Dogma- 
tik, in Allg. Monatsschrift. 1851; Engelhardt, in Zeitschrift fur d. hist. Theologie, 1852, 
3, 4, a review and criticism of the literature.—Niedner, d. Recht d. Dogmen im Christen- 
thume, in the same Zeitschrift. 1852; Dortenbach, d. Methode d. Dogmengesch. in Stu- 


c 


te 


560 : WORKS IN CHURCH HISTORY. | 


dien u. Kritiken. 1852; (Thomasius), Aufgabe d. Dogmengesch. in Zeitschrift Sur Protes- 
tantismus, Bd. 3.—Kling, ‘‘ Dogmengeschichte” in the Real-Encyclop. f. Prot. Theologie. 

History of Special Doctrines.—Corrodi, Chiliasmus, 4 Bde. 1794.—Baur, Versohnung. 
1838.— Baur, Dreieinigkeit,3 Bde. 1841-45.—Dorner, d. Person. Christi. 2te Aufl. 1845- 
55, 2. 2. 1 (the Reformation).— Meier, Trinitat. 1844.—Jacobi, Tradition, 1. 1847.—Kah- 
nis, vom heiligen Geiste, 1. 1847.—Hofling, Taufe, 2. 1847, ’8—Ebrard, Abendmahl, 2. 
1846.—Koahnis, Abendmahl. 1851.—Helfferich, Mystik, 2. 1842.—Guder, d. Erscheinung 
Jesu unter.d. Todten. 1853.—F. Huydekoper, Belief of first three Centuries on Christ’s 
Mission to the Underworld. Boston, 1854.—Konig, Christi Hollenfahrt. 1844.—May- 
wahlen, d. Todtenreich. 1854. 

History of Theologg.—Dr. W. Gass has begun an important work on the ‘‘ History of 
the Protestant Theology,” vol. 1. .1854.— Schweizer, d. Protestantischen Centraldogmen 
in ihrer Entwickelung, Bd. 1. 1854. Earlier works are, Heinrich, Gesch. d. Dogmatik. 
1790; Schickedanz. 1827; W. Herrmann. 1842. 

Neander’s ‘‘ Memorials of Christian Life” have been translated in part, and published 
in Bohn’s Library. 1853. 

Christian Antiquities—Of Joseph Bingham’s work a new edition is in the course of prep- 
aration in England by Richard Bingham.—C. S. Henry, Compendium of Christian Antiq. 
Phil. 1838, is an abridgment of Bingham.—Lyman Coleman, Ancient Christianity exem- 
plified, 8. Phil. 1852.— Siegel, Handbuch d. christlich-kirchlichen Alterthimer, 4 Bde. 
Leipsic, 1835-38, alphabetically arranged.—Guericke, Lehrbuch d. Archaologie, 8. Leips. 
1847.—Cf. M. J. E. Volbeding, Thesaurus commentationum illustrandis antiquitat. christ. 
inserventium, t.i. Lips. 1847.—J. E. Riddle, Manual of Christian Antiquities. Lond. 
1839. 

History of Heresies—A. Sartori, die christlichen und mit der christlichen Kirche zu- 
sammenhangenden Secten (in tabular form)... Libeck, 1855.—History of Christian Church- 
es and Sects, Rev. J. B. Marsden, 5 part8 published. 1854, ’5.— Dr. G. Volkmar, Die 
Quellen d. Ketzergeschichte bis zum Nicanum, kritisch untersucht, Bd. 1. 1855. 

Works on the General History of the Christian Church.—Neander’s history has been ad- 
mirably translated by Prof. Joseph Torrey, of the University of Vermont, in 5 vols. 8vo, 
comprising the whole of the original, including Schneider’s edition of the last volume. 
Boston, 1849-54.—The seventh edition of Dr. Hase’s History, translated by C. E. Blu- 
menthal and C. P. Wing, 8. New York, 1855.—Marheinecke, Universal Kirchenhist. Bd. 
1. 1806.—Fleury, Eccles. Hist., with Tillemont’s Chronology, transl. to A.D. 870, 5. 4. 
1727-32. 

Niedner, Kirchengeschichte, 8. - 1846: a condensed and philosophical manual.—Fricke, 
Lehrb. d. Kirchengesch.i. Leips. 1850.—W. B. Lindner, Lehrb. d. christ]. Kirchengesch. 
i-iii.1, 1848-52, to 1648, with special respect to the history of doctrines — Zeller, Gesch. 
d. Kirche. Stuttg. 1848.—Kurtz, Lehrbuch d. Kirchengesch. 2te Ausg. 1850, to be trans- 
lated by Dr. Schaeffer. Of his Handbuch d. K. Gesch. only the first volume has ‘appeared, 
in 3 parts, 1853, 4, completing the history of the Oriental Church to 1453.—Schletermacher, 
Vorlesungen uber d. Kirchengesch., edited by Bonnell. 1850. 

Of Bohringer’s *‘ die Kirche Christi u. ihre Zeugen,” a church history in biographies, 
the third division of the second volume, for the Middle Ages, has been published. 1855. 

Of the later more popular manuals of church history in German, Juda’s appeared in 
1838; Thiele, 2d ed., 1852; Jacobi, Bd. 1, 1850; Schmid, Lehrb. 1851; Wilcke, 1850; Traut- 
mann, 1852-54; Huber, Univeinelgeceh. 1850. 

The ‘‘ Ecclesiastical History of Meletius,”’ metropolitan of Athens in the seventeenth 
and eighteenth centuries, previously issued in inferior modern Greek, though written in 
the ancient, is opps at Constantinople, edited by Prof. Constantine Euthybules, first vol. 
1853. 

Stolberg’s Geschichte is continued by Brischar, 1853, Bd. 49, being the 4th vol. of the 
continuation.—Dollinger’s Church History to the Reformation, translated by Ed. Coz. 
Lond. 4. 8. 1848; “History of the Reformation” in German, in 1846.— Rohrbacher, histoire 
universelle de l’eglise, 29 tom. Par. 1842-49, A new edition is in the course ef publica. 





COLLATERAL HISTORICAL WORKS. 561 


tion.— Henrion, Hist. Eccles. depuis la création jusqu’au pontificat de Pie IX. A new 
edition in 25 vols. is in the course of publication.— M. I. Matter, Hist. du Christianisme, 
2d ed. Par. 1838. 2. 8.—Of Capefigue’s Histoire de ]'Eglise, the seventh vol., 1854, begins 
the history of the Reformation.—Abbé Darras, Hist. gener. de I‘Eglise, 4. 8 (arranged by 
the chronology of the Popes). Paris, 1854. 

The Annals of Baronius are to be continued by Aug. Theiner from A.D. 1572, where 
they were left by Laderchi; his History of Clement XIV.is a part of this work, which he ° 
undertook by request of Gregory X V1.—Palma, Praelectiones historico-ecclesiasticae. 

_Romae. 3 voll. 1838-42.—JV. J. Cherrier (Pesth), Epitome Hist. Eccl. Nov. Foederis, 2 
8. Vienna, 1854, 

A translation of Spanheim's Eccles, Annals into English, from commencement of Script. 
te Reformation. Lond. 1829.—Of Dean Milman’s History of Latin Christianity, a con- 
tinuation of his ‘‘ History,” 3 vols. were published in 1854; two more complete this por- 
tion of his elaborate work. The best edition of Milner’s Church History is by Rev. T. 
Bantham, 4. 8.— W. Bates, College Lectures on Eccl. History, 2d ed. 1852.—Jortin’s 
Remarks on Eccl. Hist.—Foulkes, Manual of Church History, the first twelve centuries. 
1851.—Chs. Hardwick, History of the Church in the Middle Ages. Camb. 1853; one of a 
series of Theological Manuals: the “ Early Church History” and that of the “ ‘Reforina- 
tion” will soon appear—J. C. Robertson, History of Christian Church to 590. Lond. 
1854.—Palmer’s Compendium of Church History, new ed. 1852.—M. Ruiitter’s History. 
New York, 1853.—State of Man before and after Promulgation of Christianity, including 
the Reformation, 4. 12. in ‘‘ Small Books on Great Subjects.” . 1850-54.—Henry Stebbing, 
Hist. of the Church to Reformation, 2, 8. From 1530 to the eighteenth century, 3. 8. 
Lond. 1842.’ 

Chronological Works and Tables of Church History.—Ecclesiastical Chronology, Rev. 
J. E. Riddle, 8. Lond. 1840.—Abstract of Vater’s Tables, by F. Cunningham. Bost. 1831. 
—Danz. Jena, 1838:—Douai, 2te Aufl., 1850.—L. Lange. Jena, 1841.—Schone. Berl. 
1838.—Franke Parker, The Church, fol. Lond. 1851.—Oxford Chronological Tables, fol. 
1835-40. 

§ 3. Relation of Church History to other Historical Studies, p. 19.—History of Culture. 
Wachsmuth, allg. Culturgeschichte. Leips. 1851, sq. und Sittengesch. 5 Bde. 1831, sq.— 
Klemm, allg. Culturgeschichte, 10 Bde. Leips. 1847-53.—Karl von Raumer, Geschichte 
der Padagogik, 4.8. (Completed 1855.)—Robert Blakey, Temporal Benefits of Christian- 
ity. Lond. 1849.—Guizot’s General Hist. of Civilization in Europe; transl. by Hazlitt. 
New York, 1850.— Hegel, Philosophie d. Geschichte, 8.— Schlegel, Philosophy of History, 
translated by Robertson. 

History of Religions —B. Constant, De la Religion, 2. 8. Paris, 1824.—Kraft, die Reli-. 
gion aller Volker. .1845.—Hegel, Phil. d. Religion, herausg. Marheinecke, 2. 8.—Bunsen,. 
Christianity and Mankind, vols. 3 and 4. ‘1854. 

History of Philosophy.—Ritter’s work is now completed in 12 volumes.— Schwegler, Gesch. 
d. Phil., 8. 1848.—Das Buch d. Weltweisheit, 2.8. 1854.—Reinhold, 3 Bde., 4th ed. 
1854.— Tennemann’s Manual, transl. by Morell. Lond. 1854.—Erdmann; Gesch. d: neueren 
Philos. (Three vols. in six.) 1834—Chalybdus, Hist. of German Philosophy, transl. 
Am.ed. 1854. 

History of Literature.— Grasse, Lehrb. einer allgemeinen Literar-geschichte aller be- © 
kannten Volker, i-iii., 3. 2 (to the first half of the nineteenth century). 1837-54.—H. 
Hallam’s View of the State of Europe in the Middle Ages, 3. 8. tenth ed. 1853; Litera- 
ture of 15th to 17th centuries, 2.8. 1853.—Sismondi’s, of the South of Europe.—Quérard’s, 
la France littéraire.— Ticknor’s Spanish Literature.—Gervinus, Gesch. d. Deutschen Lit- 
eratur. 

Upon the History of Art, in relation to Christianity, the work of Dr. Gieseler contains 
no references. Prof. Dr. F. Piper, Mythologie u. Symbolik der christlichen Kunst, Bd. }. 
1851.—Dr. F. Kugler, Hand-book of the Hist. of Art, new ed. transl. Lond. 1854.—Lord 
Lindsay's Sketches of the History of Christian Art, 3.8. 1847—Didron’s Christian Icon- 
ography, 1, transl. in Bohn’s Library. 1852—Symbols and Emblems.of Early and Me- 


A2 


562 SOURCES OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 


diaeval Christian Art, by Louisa Twining. Lond. 1852.—Mrs. Jameson, Sacred and Le- 
gendary Art, 3,—Séhnaase, Gesch. d. bildenden Kunste. 1843.—Kinkel,1. 1845.—Rom- 
berg und Steger, Gesch. d. Baukunst. 1827.—Kreuser, 2 Bde. 1851.—Pugin’s Gothic 
Specimens and Examples.—Ruskin’s Seven Lamps of Architecture, 1848; Stones of 
Venice, 3, with fol. plates. 1850-54.—Kallenbach u. Schmitt, Christliche Kirchen Bau- 
kunst, 12 Hefte. . 1853.—Kiesewetter, Gesch. d. Musik. 1846.—Hoffmann von Fallersleben, 
Gesch. d. Deutschen Kirchenlieds. 1853.—Baur, Gesch.d.Kirchenlieds. 1852.— Schauer, 
Gesch. d. bibl. kirchlichen Dicht und Tonkunst u. ihrer Werke. 1850.—Koch, Gesch. d. 
Kirchenlieds u. K. Gesangs, 4 Bde. 2te Aufl. 1853. 


Of Spruner’s Hist.-geog. Atlas, the ninth part of the second division, comprising the > 


Hist. of Europe from the beginning of the Middle Ages, was published in the second edi- 
tion. 1854. An abridged edition is in the course of publication in England.—A. L. Kop- 
pen, edition of Spruner on Middle Ages. New York. 1854.—Quin’s Hist. Atlas. Lond. 
1851.—Atlas geographique, histor., uniyerselle, V. Durny.’ Paris, 1842.—Carl v. Ritter, 
die Erdkunde im Verhaltniss zur Natur u. zur Geschichte des Menschen, xvii. Thi. 2te 
Ausg. (the 17th in 1854).—Ritter’s geogr.-statistisches Lexicon, 4te Aufl. v. Hoffmann, 
etc. - 1852. 
Chronology—Sir Harris Nicolas, The Chronology of History (Lardner’s Cycl.).—Pe- 
+tavius, de Doctrina Temporum, ed. Harduin, 3. fol. 1734-——H. Browne, Ordo Saeclorum. 
8. Lond. 1844.—D..H. Hegewisch, Introd. to Historical Chronology, transl. by James 
Marsh, 18. Burlington, 1837.—Hales, New Analysis of Chronology and Geography. Lond. 
1830, 4. 8—Blair’s Tables, new ed. Lond. 1850.—Piper, Kirchenrechnung. Berl. 1841. 
—S. F. Jarvis, Chronolog. Introd. to Church History, New York, 1845, is an inquiry into 
the dates of the birth and death of Christ —Rey. Ed..Greswell, Fasti Temporis Catholice, 
et Origines Kalendariae, 5.8. and a vol. of Charts. Lond. 1852; also, Origines Kalenda- 
riae Italicae. 4. 8. . 1854.—De Morgan’s Book of Almanacs. Lond. 1851. 

Geography, ete.—J. E. S. Wiltsch, Kirchliche Geographie und Statistik, 2.8. Berl. 
1846.—M. le Quien, Oriens Christianus. Par. 1760, 3 t. fol—A System of Ancient and 
Mediaeval Geography. By: Charles Anthon, 8. New York, 1850. 

Works in Universal History. W. C. Taylor, Manual of Ancient and Modern History, 
2.8. New York, 1846, and often.—T. Keightley, Outlines of History. Lond. 1836.— 
Weber’s Universal History, edited by Prof. Bowen, 8. Bost. 1853.— Tytler, Elements of 
General History, 4.18. New York, Harpers.—J. Miller, Hist. of World, revised by A. 
H. Everett, 4.12. New York, 1846.—C. von Rotteck, General Hist. of the World, transl., 
4.8. Phil. 1842. Cantu, C. Histoire universelle, trad. par E. Aroux. Paris, 18. 8. 1843. 
Newed. 1852-54.—H. Leo, Lehrbuch d. Universal Gesch., 6.8. Halle, 1839, s¢.—D. H. 
Dittmar, Gesch. d- Welt vor u. nach Christus, Bd. 1-4. 4. Heidelb. 1852, sg. New edi- 
tion ‘of vol. 1. 1855. 

§ 4. On the Sources of Ecclesiastical. History, p. 21.—J. G. Dowling, Introduction to the 
Critical Study of Eccl. History, 8. Lond. 1838.—Dr. Arnold’s Lecturés on Modern His- 
tory contain valuable directions to students for the use of original documents.—C. W. F. 
Walch, Kritische Nachricht von den Quellen d. Kirchengesch. Leips. 1770. 

Biographies of the Popes.—Bowyer, Hist. of Popes, continued by S. H. Cor, 3.8. Phil. 
1840.—De Cormenin, Hist. Popes. Phil. 1845.—Miuiller, Abbé Prof. Phil. die rémischen 
Pabste, 14 Bde. to 1855.—The Popes, from Linus to Pius IX. By G. A. F. Wilks. 
Lond. 1851.—J. E. Riddle, History of Papacy, 2. 8. Lond. .1854.—W. eee, da 
Quellen d. friheren Pabstgeschichte, in Allg. Monatsschrift. 1852. 

The volume of the ‘‘ Acta Sanctorum,” for Oct. 10 and 11, was reprinted at Brussels i in 
1852; the vol. for Oct. 17-20, the second of the Brussels continuation, was published in 
1853 ; the first of this continuation in 1845.—Alban Butler’s Lives. of the Saints, 12. 8. 
New York, 1849. 

Collections of the Works of the Fathok: ete.—L. E. Dupin, History of Eccl. Writers to 
close of 16th Century, transl. by Wm. Wotton and Digby Cotes, 3. fo). Dublin, 1723.— 
Cave, Script. Eccles. etc., edited by Henry Wharton, best ed. Oxford, 1740, 41. Idem, 
Chartophylax Teclésiantict, ete, 1685, 6. 


WORKS ON THE COUNCILS AND SYMBOLS. 563 


Spicilegium Solesmense, tom. 1 (to be in 10), 1853, 4; fragments from the-second to 
the fourth century, edited by J. Pitra.—Caillot et Guillon, Collectio S. Patrum.- Paris, 
1841, sq.,.148 t. with Indices.—J. P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Compl., 130 tom. to 1854. 
—Martene et Durand, Vet. Scriptorum Collectio.. Paris, 1724-33, 9 fol.; Thesaurus Nov. 
Anecdot. 1747, 5 fol.—J. E. Grabe, Spicilegium ss. patrum., 2 fol. Oxon. 1698.—D’ Ache- 
ry, Spicilegium, 13. 4. Par. 1655.—Mabillon, Vetera Analecta. Par. 1723, fol.—Balu- 
zius, Miscellanea. 1761, 4 fol—Muratori, Anecdota. 1697, 4. 4. 

J. G. Walch, Bibliotheca Patristica. 1770.—Augusti, Chrestomathia Patristica. 1812. 
—Roesler, Bibliothek d. K. Vater,10 Bd. 1776.—J. Basnage, Thesaurus Menumentorum. 
Amst. 1695, 6 fol—A. Mai, Patrum Nova Bibliotheca, t. 6. 1852, ’3, (to be in 10-volumes) ; 
previously, Seript. vet. Nova Collectio e Vat. Codd, Rom. 1825, sq., 10.4.—Bibliotheca 
Patr. Eccl. Lat., ed. Gersdorf, 13 tom. 12 (Clement, Tertull., Ambrose, Lactant., Arno- 
bius, Minucius Felix).—A. Mai, Spicilegium Rom., tom. 10. 4. 1839, 44. 

W. Cave, Lives of the Fathers, ed, H. Cary, 3.8. Oxf. 1840.—Institutiones patrolo- 
giae, Dr. J. Fessler, tom. 1. 1850, 8.—J. N. Locherer, Lehrb. d. Patrologie. 1837.— Winter, 
Patrologie. 1814. Annegarn, 1837.—Adam Clark, View of Succession of Sacred Lit. 
vol. 2. By J. B. B. Clark, 2. 8. . Lond. 1830, ’1—At Athens, in 1846, O{Ao0AoyixA Kat 
- Kpitixy iotopia Tév dyiwy ratepwv, dro Kavotavtivov Koytoyovov, 775 p. 8, ends with 
John of Damascus: cf. Leips. Repertorium. Feb. 1852. 

The first volume of Hefele, Geschichte d. Concilien, 1855, reaches fo the fourth century. 
-—H. T. Bruns, Bibl. Eccl. Canones Apost. et Concilierumsaec., 4.7. Berol. 1839, 2 tom. 
—A Manual of Councils, with the Substance of the most important Canons, by Rev. E. H. 
Landon, Lond. 1846.—Definitions of Faith, and Canons of the Six Gicumenical Councils, 
by Rev. W. A. Hammond. Am.ed.12. New York, 1844.—French Councils: Sirmond, 
Concilia antiq. Galliae. . Par. 1629, 3 fol.; Suppl. 2 fol—Spanish< Gonzalez, Coll. Can. 
Eccl. Hisp. Matriti, 1808, fol.— Saenz D’ Aguirre, Coll. maxima Conc. omnium Hisp. et 
novi orbis. Rom. 1693, 3 fol. —Concilios provinciales de Mexico (in 1555, ’65, ’85), 3. 
1769, 70, Mexico.—English: H. Spelman, Conc. Decr. ad 1066, fol. 1639.—D. Wilkins, 
Cone. Mag. Brit. et Hibern. . Lond. 1727, 4 fol— LZ, Howell, Synopsis Concil., fol. 1708. 
—German: Hartzheim, Conc. Germaniae. .1749, 10 fol. ~ 

Beveridge, Pandectae Canon. ss. et Conciliorum ab Ecclesia Graeca receptorum, etc., 
2 fol. Oxon. 1672. 

Cabassutii, Notitia Eccl. Hist. Concil: et Canonum, fol. Lugd. 1690. New edition, 3. 
8. Par. 1838 (1690).—A. D’Avallon, Histoire chronol. et dogmatique des Conciles. Par. 
(vol. iv. issued in 1854).—Hammond (Ap:). Paraenesis (1656), 1841, p. 98, sq. 

Symbolism, Confessions of Faitk—G. B. Winer, Comparative Darstellung ds. Lehrbe- 
griffs d. verschiedenen christlichen Kirchenpartheien. .2te Aufl. Leips. 1837.—Chs. But- 
ler, Hist. and Lit. Account of Symbol. Books, 8, Lond. 1816.—Peter Hall, The Harmony 
of Protest. Confessions, new ed, Lond. 1842.—Guericke, Allg. christ]. Symbolik.. Leips. 
2te Aufl., 1846.—Marheineke, Christlich. Symbolik, th. 1, Katholicismus, 3 Bde. . 1810-13; 
Institutiones Symbol. ed., 3. 1830; Vorlesungen, ed: Matthies u. Vatke. 1848.—E. Koll- 
ner, Symbolik christlich. Confessionen. i. Luth. K. ii. Kathol. K., 8. Hamb..1837, s¢.— 
A. H. Baier, Symbol. d. christ]. Confess.,1; Rom. Kath. K. Leips. 1854.—K. Matthes, 
Comp. Symbolik, 8. Léips. 1854—G. J. Planck, Abriss einer hist. u. vergleich. Darstel- 
lung d. dogmat. Syst. 3te Aufl: -1822. 

Mohler, Symbolik, 5te Aufl. 1838. English transl. by J: B. Robertson. New York, 
- 1840.— Baur, Gegensatz d. Kathol. u. Prot. 2te Ausg- 1836.—Mohler, Neue Untersuch- 
ungen. 2te Ausg. 1835.— Nitzsch, Prot. Beantwortung d. Symbolik Dr. Mosler’s, 8. 
Hamb. 1835 (aus d. Stud. u. Krit.). 

Bullariwm Romanum, etc. Continuation by A. Spetia. 1835-44, 8 tom. fol. -Another 
yolume added in 1852. : 

P. Jaffé, Regesta Pontif. Romanorum a condita Ecclesia ad annum post Christum 1198. 
Berol. 1851, 4. These Regesta, from 1198 to 1572, are in the Vatican, in 2016 folios. 
Among the Protestants, Pertz *%&% “most the only one who has been allowed to exam- 
ine them, for his Monumenta Germaniae. The Regesta to 1198 are for the most part. - 


. 


564 WORKS UPON THE PRIMITIVE HISTORY. 


lost. Jaffé, in the above work, has collected the fragments (ef. Kurtz, Handbuch, 
1. § 4). 

Liturgies —Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiae universae in Epitomen redactus.. Curavit Dr. 
H. A. Daniell. Completed in 4 vols. 1854.—L. A. Muratori, Lit. Romana vetus. Venice, 
1748, 2 fol.—Mabillon, Liturg. Gallicana. Paris, 1729.—J. Pinius, Liturgia Ant. Hisp- 
Goth. Mozarab. Rom. 1749. 2 fol. (cf. Christ. Rembr. Oct. 1853).—J. Goar, Rituale Grae- 
corum. Ven. 1780.—Guillaume Durand, Rationale ou Manuel des divins offices. New 
edition. Par. 5, 8. 1854.—Palmer, W., Origines Liturgicae ; or, Antiq. of the Church of 
England, 2.8. 1845.—J. M. Neale, Tetralogia Liturgica (those of James, Mark, Chry- 
' sostom, and the Mozarabic). Lond. 1848.— Bunsen, Analecta Ante-Nicaena, 3.8. 1854. 

Additional Works on the First Period —1-324. Page 29.—Eusebius: Hist. Eccl. ad Codd. 
MSS. recens, E. Burtén. Oxon. 1845; Annotationes variorum, tom. 2. 1842. Hist. 
Eccl. recognovit A. Schwegler. 1853. A new translation of Eusebius, by Dr. C. F. Cruse. 
New York, 4th ed. 1847, and London.—Evagrii, Hist. Eccl. Oxon. 1844 (ex recens. H. 
Valesii).— Socrates’ Schol. ex recens. Valesii. Oxon. 1844. The early ecclesiastical his- 
torians, Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoretus, and Evagrius, have been issued in 
an English version, in 6 vols.8._ Lond., Bagster, 1845, ’°6.— Theodoreti, Ecclesiasticae his- 
toriae recensuit, Thos. Gaisford (a new revision of the text, from two MSS. in the Bod- 
leian). Oxon. 1854. 

Henry Milman, Hist. of Christ. Lond. 3. 8.; New York, 1841.—E. Burton, Lectures 
to Time of Constantine, 2. 8. Oxf. 1849, Works vol. iv. v.—Maurice, Lectures on Eccl. 
Hist. of first and second Cent., 8. Lond. 1854.—Hinds, Rise and Progress of Christianity, 
2. 8... 1828.—D. Welsh, Elements Ch. Hist. vol. i, Edinb. 1844.—Cave’s Lives of the 
Fathers, 3.8—H. G: Humphrey, Early Progress of the Gospel (Hulsean Lect.). 1850.— 
Whiston’s Primitive Christ., 4. 8.—W. Cooke Taylor, History of Christ. to its Legal Es, 
tablishment in the Roman Empire, 12. Lond. 1844.—Jeremie, Christ. Ch. second and 
third Cent. Encycl. Metr—Neander, transl. by Rose, 8. New York, 1848.—W. Kipp, 
Early Conflicts of Christians. New York, 1850.—B. H. Cooper, Free Church of Ancient 
Christendom. Lond. 1854.—Chs. Maitland, The Church in the Catacombs. Lond. 1846. 

F. C. Baur, d. Christenthum u. d. christl. Kirche d. drei ersten Jahr., 8. 1853.—D. J. 
Hergenrother, de Catholicae Ecclesiae primordiis recentiorum Protest. systemata expen- 
duntur, 8. 1851.—Ritschl, Entstehung d. altkatholischen Kirche. Bonn, 1839—Hagen. 
bach, d. drei ersten Jahrhnd., 8. 1853.—Biesenthal, Gesch. aus Talmud. Quellen. Berl, 
1850.—Gfrorer, Geschichte des Urchristenthums. Stuttg. 1831, sqg.,3 Bde—The “ Ec- 
clesiastical History of John of Lara pt. 3, edited by Cureton, 1853, is important for the 
Monophysitic discussion. 

Brocklesby, Hist. of Primitive Christ. first three Centuries, 1712, 8—Whiston’s Primi- 
tive Christianity, 4. 8. 1711—W. Reeves, Apology of Primitive Fathers, 2.8. London, 
'716.— Wakefield, Opinions of the three first Centuries, 8. 1755.—C. J. Couard, we of 
early Christians of first three Centuries, transl. by L. J. Bernays (Edb. Bibl. Cab.).—W. 

- Simpson, Epitome Hist. Christ. Church first three Cent.,2d ed. 1851.—Rev. Chs. Smyth, 
Voice of the Early Church. Lond. 1850.—J. De Wille, The Christ. of certain Roman 
Empresses before Constantine. Paris, 1853.—W. G. Humphrey, Early Propagation of 
Gospel (Hulseans). 1850. 

Works on the Apostolic Age, page 30.—Philip Schaff, History of Apostolic Church. 
Transl. by E. D. Yeomans, 8. New York, 1853.—Geo. Benson, History of first Planting 
of Christianity, 3.4. 1759—H. W. J. Thiersch, Gesch. d. christl. Kirche, 1. 1852. 
English transl. by T. Carlyle. 1852—Lechler, d. Apostolische u. nachaposto]. Zeitalter. 
Haarlem, 1851 (prize essay).—Schwegler, d. Nachapostolische Zeitalter, 2.8. Tubingen, 
1846.—J. P. Lange, Gesch. d: Kirche i. Apostol. Zeitalter. 1853.—M. Baumgarten, d. 
Apostolgesch. u. s. w. (Transl. Edinb. 1855.)—Dietlein, das Urchristenthum ‘(against 
Baur). 1845.—Rothe, die Anfange d. christlichen Kirche, Bd. 1. 1837.—Neander’s Plant- 
ing and Training, ete. Transl. by J. E. Ryland. Philad. 1844—W. W. Harvey, Eccle- 
siae Catholicae Vindex Catholicus, Collection of treatises, trans]., 3.8. Lond. 

§.3-14. Condition of the Heathen Nations, etc., page 30-44.—Collinson’s Observations 


WORKS ON THE STATE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE. 565 


on the Preparation of Man for Christianity. Lond. 1840.—Mosheim’s Commentaries, vol. 
i. p. 9-49.— Trench, Unconscious Prophecies of Heathenism (Hulsean Lect.).. Am. ed. 
1853.— Maurice, Religions of the World, ete. Am. ed. 1854.—State of Man before Pro- 
mulgation of Christianity, in ‘Small Books,”’-etc. 1848.—Schaff, p. 143-164. 

Creuzer, Symbolik u. Mythologie. 3te Aufl. 1837.—F. C. Baur, Symbolik u. Mythol. 
1824.—A. Muller, Introd. to Scientific Mythology. -Transl. by J. Leitch. 1844.—Stuhr, 
d. Religions Systems d. Hellenen. 1838.—G..S. Faber, Origin and Progress of Idolatry, 
3. 4. - 1816.— Warburton, Divine Legation of Moses.—L. Preller, Griech. Mythol. 1854. 
—J..C. Harless, de Sipernaturalismo Gentilium (Progr.). 1834.—J. F. Sepp, d. Heiden- 
thum, uw. seine Bedeutung, 3. 8.. 1853.—A. Wuttke, Gesch. ds. Heidenthums, 2 Bde. 1854. 
—J. Voss, de Theolog. Gentili et Physiol. Christiana. 1675, 2. 4—Gorres, Mythengesch. 
d. Asiatischen Volker, 2.8. 1810. . 

--§ 15-19. Condition of the Jewish People, ete.—The works of Josephus, transl. into En. 
glish by W. Whiston, in frequent editions; a new transl. by R. Traill, with notes by J. 
Taylor, 2.8. 1847.—Dr. F.-Creuzer on Josephus: Stud. u. Krit. 1850, 1853.—Prepara- 
tion for the Gospel, as exhibited in the History of the Israelites. By Geo. Curry (Hulsean 
Lect.). 1851—W. H. Johnstone, Israel in the World; or, the Mission of the Hebrews to 
the great military Monarchies, 12. London, 1854.—Jd., Israel after the Flesh, etc., 8. 
Lond. 1852.—Kurtz, Sacred History. Transl by Dr. Schaffer. Philad. 1855.—Id., Ge- 
schichte des alten Bundes, 1.2 (1854).-—Lengerke, Kenaan,1: 1844.—Dr. Murdock, trans]. 
of Jost on Condition of Jews, etc. Bibl. Repos. . 1839.—Geo. Smith, Sacred Annals, 3. 8. 
Am. ed. 1850—54.—Jsaac_M. Wise, Hist. Israel. Nation, 1. Albany, 1854.—Is. Da Costa, 
Israel and the Gentiles. New York, 1855.—Ewald’s Gesch. d. Israeliten. 2te Ausg. 4. 
8. 1851~54.—Leo, Vorlesungen. 1828.—-_Basnage, Hist. d. Juifs, 15 tom. 12.—M. De Bon- 
nechose, Histoire Sacrée. Paris, 1850.—Analysis and Summary of Old Test. Hist., by J. 
LL. Wheeler, 2d ed. 1854.—Jarvis, Church of Redeemer, vol. i. Old Test., 8. New York, 
1851.—Gleig’s Hist. of Bible, 2. 18.—Jost, Hist. Jews: transl. by J. H. Hopkins. New 
York.—Rev. J. Jones, Chronological and Analytical View of the Bible. Oxf. 1836. 

Thos. Stackhouse, Hist. of Bible. Ed. by Rev. G. Gleig, 3.4. London, 1817.—Bishop 
Hall, Contemplations on Old and New Test. (1634) in Works. 1808.—Samuel Shuck- 
ford, Connection Sacred and Profane History, 3. 8.—Russell’s Connection, 2... 1827,— 
Prideaux’s Connection, 4. 8. Oxf. 1820.—Davidson’s. New York, 1853.—Howell’s Hist. 
of Bible. Edited by Geo, Burder. 3.8. ‘Lond. 1805.—Sharon Turner’s Sacred Hist. of 
World, 3.18. (Harper’s Lib.)—Dean Milman’s Hist. Jews, 3.18. 1831. (Harper's Lib.). 

J. J. F. Buddaeus, Hist. Eccles. Vet. Test., ed. 4, 2.4. .1744.—Vitringa, de Synagoga. 
1696 ; abridged by Bernard, 1849.—Saurin, Discours. Hist. Theol. Moraux, etc. 1720, sq. 
—-J. J. Hess, Geschichte d. Israel, 12 Bde. 1776-88.—Hévernick, d. Theologie d. Alt. 
Test., 1848.—Vatke, Rel. d. Alt. Test., 1. 1835.—Knobel, d. Prophetismus. | 1837.— 
J. C.K. Hoffmann, Weissagung u. Erfillung im A. u. N. Test., 2. 8. 1841.—Spirit of 
Old Test., Dr. J. Lewis’s Bibl. Repos. 1850.—Palfrey, Academical Lectures on Jewish 
Script. and Antiq., 4. 8. 1850-52. 

Samaritans.—J. Grimm, d. Samariter, u. ihre Stellung in d. Weltgeschichte. Muimnchen, 
1854.—E. Burritt, in Am. Ecl., 2.249. 281.—Samaritan Pentateuch, Kitto’s Journal. - July, 
1853.—Christ. Exam., 28. 29 (J. Walker).—M. Stuart, in Bibl. Repos., vol. 2, and North 
Am., vol. 22. 

The Essenes.—Kitto’s Journal. Oct. 1852 ; April, 1853; Oct. 1853.— W. Hall, Bibl. Re- 

-pos., 3d series, 3. ; a 

Philo and the Alexandrian Philosophy.—M. Wolff, d. Philon’sche Philosophie.. Leips. 
1849.—Dr. Rubinssohn, in Christ. Rev. Jan. 1853.—First Eng. transl. by C. D. Yonge,. 


Bohn’s Lib. 3 vols. published 1855.—John Jones, Eccles. Researches on Philo and Jose- » ' 


phus. Lond. 1812.—Szt. Paul and Philo, Journal of Class. and Sacred Lit., 1. 1854. 

§ 20, page 59.—The Life of Jesus.—Dr. J. N. Sepp, d. Leben Jesu, 4. 8. Munchen, 
1843, sq: (French transl. 1848.)—Ebrard, Wiss. Kritik d. Evangel. Geschichte. 1842.— 
Krabbe, Leben Jesu. 1838.—Weisse, Evang. Gesch., 2. 1838, '9.—Gfeorer, d. Urchris- 
tenthum, 1—Qsiander, Apologie. 1837.—J. P. Lange, d. Leben Jesu, 3, 1844.—Hoff. 


566 LIFE OF CHRIST, AND LIVES OF THE APOSTLES. 


mann, d. Leben Jesu nach d. apocryphen Ev aaa 1853.—Ewald, Geschichte . Citar. 
tus und seiner Zeit. 1855. 

Fleetwood’s Life of Christ and the Apostles (Works, 1854).— Henry Blunt, Life of our 
Saviour. Am. ed. Phil. 1850.—Birth and Infancy of Christ, Jl. Sacr. Lit. 1854.—Ne- 
ander’s Life of Christ. Trans]. by Prof. Blumenthal.- New York, 1845. 

J. Salvador, Jesus Christ, et sa Doctrine, 2 tomes. Paris, 1838.—Beard, Voice of the 
Church (in reply to Strauss). Lond. 1844.—Alexander’s Christ and Christianity. New 
York edit. 1854.—A. Norton, Genuineness of Gospels, 3.8. 2ded. 1852.—/d., Internal 
Evidence, 2. -1855.—Da Costa, Four Witnesses. Lond. 1851.—Jas. Smith, Diss. Origin 
Gospels. Lond. 1852.—Jas. Strong, A new Harmony. New York, 1852.—Kostler, Ur- 
sprung u. Composition d. Synopt. Evang. 1852.—Hilgenfeld, Evangelien nach ihrer 
Entstehung. 1854. = 

Chronological Data in Life of Christ.—S. F. Jarvis, Chronot. Introd. to Church History. 
1845.—Journal of Sacred Lit., 1825, on the Nativity—J. P. Mynter, Bishop of Seeland, 
de Momentis Chronol. in Vita T. Xti. 1843.— Weeseler, Date of Birth. Transl. Bib. 
Sac. by Prof. Day.—N. Mann, True Years of Birth and Death of Christ. Lond. 1752.— 
Tdeler, Handb. d. Chronologie, 2. | 1826.—Montacutius, Analect. Exercit. Eccles. (Exc. ix. 
p. 317, sq.).—Byneus, de Natali Jesu Christi, fol. 1689. 

§ 22, page 63.—John the Baptist.—Life, by Rev: Wm. C. Duncan, 12. New York, 
1852.—Johannes d: Taufer in Gefangnisse, by Dr. B. Gauss, of Tubingen. 1853.—Ver- 
haltniss Joh. d: Taufers zum Herrn, Luth. Zeitschrift. 1852. 

§ 26, page 76.—Paul, ete.—Conybeare and Hewson, Life and Epistles of Paul, 2. 4. 
Lond. 2.8; New York, 1854 (cf. President Woolsey, in New Englander, Feb. 1854).—J- 
Pearson’s Lectures on Acts and Annals of Paul. Ed. by J: R. Crowfoot—Whateley’s Dif- 
ficulties in Writings of Paul. 1845.—Life of Paul, by Rev. Dr. Addington.—Life and 
Nac by Mr.. Bevan. Lond:—Tholuck, Life of Paul. Transl. in Bibl. Cabinet, No. 

28.—Henry Blunt, Lect. on Paul.. 10th ed: London, 1851 (repr. Phil.).— Thos. Lewin, 
Life of St. Paul, 2.8. Lond. 1851.—A. T. Paget, Unity and Order of St. Paul’s Epis- 
tles. Lond. 1852.—Jas. Smith, Voyages and Shipwreck of St. Paul. Lond. 1848.—Paul 
and Demosthenes, by Koster, in Stud. u. Kritiken, 1854. Transl. in Bib. Sacra. 1854.— 
Paul and Josephus, Journ. Sacr. Lit:, April, 1854.— Usteri, d. Paul. Lehrbegriff. 5th ed. 
1834.—Dahne, d: Paul. Lehrbeg. 1835.—J. P. Mynster, De ultimis annis Muneris Apos- 
tolici a Paulo gesti. 1815.—An‘'Attempt to ascertain the Chronology of the Acts of the 
Apostles and of St. Paul’s Epistles, by E. Burton, 8. Oxf. 1830 (Works, vol. .4).—Baur, 
Paulus. 1845.—Zeller, ber d. Apostlegeschichte. Tubingen Zeitschrift, 1850, *l.—Jd., 
d. Ursprung d. Apostelgeschich. 1854.—Lekebusch, d. Composition und Entstehung d. 
Apostelgesch. v. neuem untersucht. 1854.—Baumgarten, von Jerusalem zu Rom., 2. 8. 
1854 (to be transl. in Clark’s Library).—Schneckenburger, Beitrage zur Erklarung d. Apos- 
telgeschichte: Stud. u. Krit. 1855. 

§ 27, page 80.—History of the other Apostles—Bacon’s Lives of the Apostles. New 
York, 1850. 

Peter—Henry Blunt, Nine Lectures on Péter. 18th ed. 1851.—Mayerhoff, Einleitung 
in d. Petrinsche Schriften. 1835.— Wéindischmann, Vindiciae Petrin. 1836.—J. C. Simon, 
Mission and Martyrdom of Peter ; original Text of all the Passages supposed to imply a 
Journey to the East, 8. 1842.—Cave’s Lives of Apostles.—Kitto’s Journal, vol. 5.— Allies, 

. Primacy of Peter, on the Basis of Passaglia. Lond: 1852. Cf. Dublin Review, July, 1853. 

John.—Lnicke, d. Evangelien u. Episteln (3te Aufl.), Enleitung in d. Offenbarung. 2te 
Aufl. 1850-54.—Fromman (1839), Kostlin (1843), Ueber d. Lehrbegriff d. Johannes.— 
Ebrard, d. Evangel. Johannes. 1845.—F. Trench, Life and Character of John. London, 
1850.—J. B. Troost, Disquisitio de Discipulo quem dilexit Jesus. Lugd. Bat.—K. F. Th. 
Schneider, Aechtheit d. Johan. Evang. 1854.—G. K. Mayer, Aechtheit, u.s. w.. Schaffhau- 
sen, 1854;—Die Johan. Frage, by F. C. Baur, in'Theol. Jahrb. Tubingen, 1854. 2 Heft. 

Lnitterbeck, d. Neutestamentliche, Lehrbegriffe. 1854—Dr. Grabe, Essay on the Doc- 
trine of the Apostles. 1711. 

§ 30. Constitution of the Church—Rothe, Die Anfange d. christ]. Kirche.  1837.—Bazur;, 


THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. ' 567 


Ursprung des Episcopats. | 1838,—Petersen, d. Idee d. Kirche,3. 1843~-46.—Palmer, The 
Church, 2. 8. 1841.—Milton’s Prelatical Episcopacy (Works). 

Bingham’s Origines Eccles.—Hooker, Laws of Eccl. Polity. Ed. by Keble, 2. 8—Bil- 
son’s Perpetual Government. 1593.—Sir P. King, Primitive Church. New York, 1841. 
—Sclater’s Original Draught. 1833 (Am. ed.).—Hickes’s Two Treatises, 2.8, 1711, and in 
Libr. Angl. Cath. Theol—Marshall’s Notes. New York, 1844.—Bowden, Episcopacy, 2. 
New York, 1808, sq.—Routh, m Relig. Sacrae, vol. 4, all canons before Nice. 

Whateley, on the Kingdom of Christ. New York, 1842.—Mason, Essays on Church. 
1843.— Wilson’s Government of Church. 1833.—Coleman, Apostol. Church. 1844.—Prim. 
Church Officers: New York. 1851.— Woods’s Objections to Episcopacy. 1844.—Cha- 
pin’s Prim. Church. 1842.—Barnes’s Inquiry. 1843.—Miller’s Letters and primitive Or- 
der.—Smyth’s Apostol. Succession. 1844.—King’s Church Government. 1853.—Qwen’s 
Works, vol. 15. 16.—Bazter on Episcopacy.—Chauncey’s View of the Fathers.—Cotton’s 
Keys.—Goodwin’s Government of the Church.—Ayton on Church Government.—Bishop 
Kaye (Lincoln), Account of the external Discipline and Government of the Church of 
Christ, first three Cent. Lond. 1855. 

§ 35. The Apostolic Fathers.—The third edition of Hefele, Patrum Apostol., ete. 1849. 
—T. Chevallier, Epistles of Clem., Rom., Ign., et¢., transl. 2d ed. Lond. 1851.—Ritschl, 
die altkatholische Kirche-—Hilgenfeld, d: Apostol. Vater. 1854 (cf. Review by Lipsius, 
in Gersdorf’s Repertorium). 1854.—J. H. B. Liibkert, die Theologie der Apostol. Vater : 
Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theologie. 1854. 

Archbishop Wake’s Genuine Epistles of Apostol. Fathers (1693). New York, 1817.— 
Daille, Right Use of the Fathers. Transl. by S. W. Hanna. Lond. 1838 (Phil. ed.).— 
Collinson’s Bampton Lecture, Key, etc. Oxf. 1813—C. W. Woodhouse, Use and Value 
of the Fathers (Hulsean Essay). Lond. 1842.—Bickersteth, The Fathers. Lond. 1845. 

Ignatius, Epistles (Gk. and Eng.), by W. Whiston, in Prim. Christ. Revived, 1. 1711. 
—W. Cureton, Corpus Ignat. (Syriac, Greek, and Latin). London. 1848.—ZJd., Vindi- 
ciae Ignat. 1846.—Bunsen, Ignat. u. seine Zeit. 1847.—ZJd., Die drei achten u. d. vier 
unachten Briefe ds. Ign. 1847.—Baur, die Ign. Briefe. 1848.—Deuzinger, d. Aechtheit 
d. Ign. Briefeg 1849. Cf. Zeitschrift fur d. Lath. Theol., 1848-52 (abridged in Arnold’s 
Theol. Critic, 1852); Zeitschrift fiir d. hist. Theol., 1851, by Uhlhorn; Quarterly Rev. 
(Lond.) 1851, Jan.; Edinb. Rev., 1849; Church Rev., 1849. 


Clement of Rome.—Hilgenfeld, Kritische Untersuchungen. 1850—Clementis Rom. quae . 


feruntur Homiliae, etc. Ed. by A. Dressel, 1853; A. Schwegler, 1847.—G. Uhlhorn, d. 
Homilien u. Recogn. 1854.—LH. Gundert, d. erste Brief ds. Clem. Rom., in Zeitschr. Luth. 
Theol. 1853, ’4.—E. Ecker, Disquisitio—de Cl. Rom. prior. ad Rom. Epistola. Traj. ad 
Rhenum. 1853.—Ua;lhorn, in Real. Encycl. f. Prot. Theologie—R. A. Lipsius, de Cle- 
mentis Rom. Epistola ad Corinthios priore Disquisitio, 8. Leipsic, 1855. 

§ 40. Celsus and Lucian.—Transl. of Disc. of Celsus, with notes, in Glass’s Works, 
vol. 4; M. Bonhéreau, of Dublin: transl. into French. Amsterd. 4. 1700.—Zzcian, u. d. 
Christhenthum, ein Beitrag zur K. Gesch. ds. zweiten Jahr.: Studien u. Kritiken, 1853; 
transl. in Bibl. Sacra, 1853.— Lucian, ed. Bekker, 2. 1853.—Life and Writings of Lucian, 
in Quarterly Rev., vol. 37. 

Papias, Fragments, in Lardner’s Credibility, vol. 2. 

§ 44-48. Gnostics, etc.—Ed. Burton, Inquiry into the Heresies of the Apostolic yt 
(Bampton Lects. 1829); Works, vol. 3. 1837.—H. Rossel, Theol. Untersuchungen iiber 
d. Gnost. s. 179-209.—ZJd., Syst. ds. Valentinus, s. 250-300.—On the early Forms of 
Gnosticism, in Bunsen’s Hippolytus.—Gieseler, in Studien u. Kritiken. 1830.—Mohler, 
Ursprung ds. Gnosticismus. 1831.—Baur, in his Drei ersten Jahr.—Pistis Sophia, Opus 
Gnosticum Valentino adjudicatum. Edited by J. H. Petermann. Berl. 1852. Cf. Kost- 
lin, in Theol. Jahrb. 1854.—Valentinianus, and Tertullian, Works of Bp. Hooper, 307-345. 

Jacobi, Prof. Dr. L. Basilidis, Philos. Gnost. Sententiae ex Hippolyti libro, etc. Berl. 
1852.—E. Gundert, d. Syst. ds. Basilidis, in Zeitschft. Luth. Theol. 1855.—Dorner, in his 
Gesch. d. Person Christi, u. s. w.— Pusey on Manichees, in “Conf. of Augustine.” 

A. H. L. Fuldner, Comm, de Ophitis. 1834. 


: 568 APOLOGIES AND APOCRYPHAL WORKS. 


Marcion.— Harting, Quaestio de Marcione, Traj.ad Rhenum. 1849.—Ritschl, d. Evang. 
Marcions. 1847.—Volckmar, d. Evang. Marcions. Cf. Gersdorf, Repert. 1852.—Franck, 
d. Evang. Mare.: Stud. u. Krit.. 1855.—Hilgenfeld, d. Apostolikon Marcions, in Zitschft. 
f. d. hist. Theologie, 1855. 

Melito, bishop of Sardis, p. 143.—See Journal of Sacred Lit. and Bibl. Record, Jan.1855. 

§ 50.— Apologies for Christianity, p. 145, cf. Bolton; The Apologists of the second and 
. third Century. Am.ed. Boston, 1853.—Corpus Apolog. Christ. Ed. by Otto; Justin, 
2ded. 1850, 5 tom. ; Tatian, 1851.—Baur, in his Dogmengeschichte, und Geschichte d. 
drei ersten Jahr.—Clausen, Apologetae Ecclesiae. 1837. 

Theophilus Antioch, Libri tres ad Autolycum. Edit. by G. G. Humphrey. Lond. 1852. 
—The Octavius of Minucius Felix. Edited by Rev. H. A. Holden. Oxf. 1853.— Other 
Eng. transl. by R. James, Oxf. 1636 ; Combe, 1703; W. Reeves, 1719 (in ‘* Apolog. of Prim. 
Fathers”); by Dalrymple. Edinb. 1781.—The Apologetics, by J’. Betty. Oxf. 1722. 

Epistola ad Diognetum.—Just. M. Epist. ad Diognetum, by Hoffmann. 1851. Cf. Otto, 
in Gersdorf’s Rep. 1852.—The Epistle translated in Kitto’s Journal, 1852; and Princeton 
Review, 1853.—Der Brief an Diogn., herausg. by W. A. Hollenberg. Berlin, 1853. Cf. 
Gersdorf’s Rep. Marz, 1853. 

Justin Martyr—Bishop Kaye, Some Account of Opinions and Writings of Just. Mart. 
2d ed.—Lemisch on J. M., transl. by J. E. Ryland, in Bibl. Cab., vol. 41. 42.—De J. M. 
doctrina, Diss. by A. Kayser. 1850.—Volckmar, Ueber J. M. 1853,—Just. Mart., v. K. 
Otto, reprinted from Allg. Encyclop. 1853.—Duncker, d. Logoslehre d. Just. M. 1847.— 
Zur charakteristik d. Just. M., v..K. Otto. Wien, 1852.—D. Evang. ds. Just. by Hilgen- 
feld, Theol. Jahrb. 1852.—Volckmar, die Zeit ds. Just. M., Theol. Jahrb. 1855. 

English transl., by W. Reeves (the first Apol.). 2ded. 1716.—Dialogue with Trypho, 
by H. Browne, 2. 8. Lond. 1755.—Exhort. to Gentiles, by JT. Moses. 1757. 

§ 51. Irenaeus, p. 148.—Opera quae supersunt. Ed. by Stieren, 1850. —Supposed Frag- 
ments, Spicilegium Solesmense, 1. 1852 (cf. Christ. Rembr. 1853, July).—Life and Times of 
Ireneus, in The Eclectic (Lond.), Sept. 1854.—J. Beaven, Life of Irenaeus, 8. Lond. 1841. 

Canon of New Test.—J. Kirchhofer, Quellensammlung zur Geschichte d. Neutest. 
Canon, bis Hieron. Zurich, 1844.—W. J. Thiersch, d. Neutestamentliche,Canon. 1845. 
Cosin, Scholastical Hist. of the Canon, 4. 1672.—Jones (Jeremiah), New and full Method 
of settling the Canon. Authority of New Test., 3.8. 1726. Newed. Oxf. 1827.—West- 
cott,on the Canon. Lond. 1855.—On the ‘‘ Fragmentum Muratorii,” by Wieseler, Studien 
u. Krit. 1847; ed. by J. Van Gilse. Amstelod. 1852.—Botticher, in Zeitschr. Luth. Theol. 
1854.—Dupin, Hist. of Canon, fol. 1699.—Whitehead, Canon and Inspiration. 1854.— 
Chr. Wordsworth, Canon and Insp. Am.ed. 1855.—Routh, in Rel. Sacrae, tom. 5, 1848. 

§ 52. Apocryphal Writings, p. 153.—Cf. Whiston, Prim. Christ., 4. 1711.—Fragmenta 
Act. S. Joh.. Ed. by Thilo. 1847.—Acta Apostol. Apocr. Ed. by Tischendorf. 1851. 
Cf. Gersdorf. Rep. Jan, 1852.—Id., de Evang. Apoc. Origine. Lugd. Bat. 1851. 

Stuart, Book of Enoch, Bibl. Repos. 1840.—Book.of Enoch. |Transl. by A, Dillmann. 
1854.—Ewald, Abhandlung tiber d. Buch Enoch. 1854.—For. Quar. Review, vol. 24.— 
Codex Apocr. Nev. Test. Edit. by Thilo, 1. .1832.—Franck, d. Evang. d. Hebraer, in 
Stud.u. Krit. 1848.—Kostlin, d. Pseudonym. Lit. d. altesten Kirch. Tish. Zeitschft. 1851. 
—Bleeck, d. Apocryphen: Stud.u. Krit. 1853.—H. Jolowicz, d. Himmelfahrt u. Vision ds. 
Jesaias. Leipsic, 1854. Cf. Gersdorf’s Rep., April, 1854.—C. Techanaol, Pilati. circa 
Christum judicio quid lucis afferatur ex actis Pilati. 1855, 

Hoffmann, R. das Leben Jesu nach d. Apocryphen. Leips. 1851. 

Sibylline Oracles.—Mai, published books, 9-14. in his Seript. Veterum nova Collectio, 
vol. 3.—Lvicke, Einleitung in d. Offhg. Joh.. 2ded. 1848.—WM. Stuart, on the Apocalypse, 
vol. 1.—Blondel, on Sibyl. Orac. Trans]. by Davies. Lond. 1661.—Sir J. Floyer, Lond. 
1751.—Oracula Sibyllina. Ed. by P. Z. Courier. Paris, 1854; with a German version 
by Friedlob. . Leips. 1852.—Volckmann, de Orac. Sibyl. 1853.—An edition of the Oracula, 
by Alexander, 2tom. Paris, 1841, 53. Cf. Meth. Quart. Rev., Oct. 1854, 

§ 54. New Platonism.—Chs. Kingsley, Four Lectures on DeesnAris and her Schools. 
Lond. 1854.—Proclus, transl. by T’. Taylor, 2.4. 1816.—Plotinus, by Taylor, 8. 1834.— 


» 





ORIGEN AND HIPPOLYTUS. 569 


Guericke, de Schola quae Alex. Flor. Cf. R. Emerson, in Bibl. Repos., vol. 4.—Simon, 
Hist. de l’Ecole d’Alexandrie, 2.8. Par. 1845.— Matter, Hist.del’Ecole. 2ded. 4 tomes. 
—Plotinus, Opera Omnia. Oxf., 3.4. 1835.—Kirchner, d. Philos. des Plotin. 1854.—Nean- 
der, in his Wiss. Abhandlungen, on Plotinus. . 1843.—Vacherot, Hist. de Ecole d’Alex- 
andrie, 3tom. Paris, 1847.—Kirchhoff, Plotinus de Virtutibus. Berlin, 1847. 

§ 56, p. 179.—Diocletian, de Pretiis rerum Venalium. Herausg. b. J. Mommsen. Leips. 
1851. 

§ 58. Elcesaites and the Clementina.—Ritschl, in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol., 1853, on the 
Elcesaites, on the basis of the work of Hippolytus.—Jd., Bedeutung d.. Pseudoclemen- 
tin. Literatur, Allg. Monatsschrift. 1852.—The Clementina, in Hilgenfeld, die Clemen- 
tinischen Recognitionen. Jena, 1848.—Ritschl, Altkathol. Kirche——Uhlhorn, in Real- 
Encyel. f. d. Prot. Theologie.—Rossel's Theologische Schriften, Bd, 1—Recognitions of 
Clement. Transl. by Whiston. Lond. 1712. 

§ 59. The Easter Controversy.—Hilgenfeld, in Theol. Jahrb. 'Tiibingen, 1849.—Weiss, 
in Reuter’s Repertorium. 1850.— Weitzel, in. Studien:u. Krit., 1848.— Weitzel, d. christl. 
Passahfeier d. drei ersten Jahrhunderte. Pforzheim, 1848. 

§ 60, p. 197.— Theology of the Fathers of second and third Centuries —Ed. Burton, Testi- 
mony of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to Trinity, Divinity of Christ, andof Holy Spirit. 1829- 
31. Works, vol. 2.—I. Bennett, The Theology of the early Christian Church (in ex- 
tracts: 8 of Congl. Lectures).—Gfrérer, Bd. 1.—Ginoulhiac, Histoire du. Dogma Catho- 
lique dans les trois premiers Siécles. Paris, 2. 8. 1850.—Reuss, R., Hist. de la Theol. 
Chrétienne, 2. 8. 1853.—Charpentier, Etudes sur les péres de |’Eglise, 2. 8. Paris, 
1853. 

. The Monarchians and Sabellians—See Baur, Lehre v.d. Dreieinigkeit u. Menschwer- 
dung Gottes, 3. 8. 1841, sy—Dorner, Lehre.v. d. Person Christi. 2te Aufl) 1845, sq.— 
Meier, Lehre v. d. Trinitat. 1844.—Lange, Gesch. d. Unitarier. 1831. 

§ 62-64, p. 208, sq. Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.—Clement of Alexandria, by Baur, 
in his christl. Gnosis.—Kling, in Studien u. Kritiken, 1841——Bishop Kaye, Account of the 
Writings and Opinions of Clem. of Alex. London, 1839.—Christ. Review, July, 1852.— 
Kitio’s Journal of Sacred Lit., 1852.—Leutzen, Erkennen u. Glauben, Cl. vy. Alex. und 
Anselm y. Canterb. Bonn, 1848.—Reinkens, de Clem. Alex. Vratislaviae, 1851.—Reu- 
ter, Clem. Alex. Theologia Moralis. Berol. 1853.—The Chronol. of Cl. of Alex., in Journ. 
of Class. and Sacred Philol., 1854.—H. Laemmer, Clem. Alex. de ‘‘logo” Doctrina. Com- 
mentatio Histor: Theol., 8. Leips. 1855. 

Origen.—Redepenning, des Hieronymus wieder aufgefundenes Verzeichniss d. Schriften 
ds. Origen, in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol., 1851.—Ritschl, die Schriftstellerei ds. Varro u. 
ds. Origen, Bonn, 1847,—Fischer, Commentatio de Originis Theologia et Cosmologia. 
1846.—C. Ramen, des Orig. Lehre vy. der. Anferstehung des Fleisches.—Mosheim’s Com- 
mentaries. Transl. by Dr. Murdock, vol. 2, p. 143-209.—R. Emerson, in Bibl. Repos., vol. 
4.—B. Sears, in Bibl. Sacra, vol. 3.—A. Lawson, in Christ: Exam., vols. 10. 11.—British 
Quarterly, vol. 2. 

§ 65. Hippolytus, p. 225.—Gieseler’s modified View, in Stud. u. Krit., 1853. A large ad- 
dition has been made to the literature by the discovery and publication of the ‘‘ Philoso-_ 
phumena, sive omnium Haeresium Refutatio,” edited by J. Miiller, and issued at Oxford 
in 1851, as a work of Origen.— Bunsen’s Hippolytus and his Age, 4. 8; second edition, 7. _ 
8. under the title of Christianity and Mankind.—Jacobi, Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1851; Meth. 
Qu. Review, 1851 ; Theolog. Critic, 1852; Edinb. Review, 1852 and 1853; Christ. Remembr. 
1853; Dublin Review, 1853, 1854; British Quarterly (two articles), 1853; Westminster, 
1853; North British, 1853; Christ. Review, 1853; North American, 1854.—Ritschl, Volck- 
mar and Baur, in the Theol. Jahrb., 1853, ’4.—Journal of Class. and Sacred Philol., 1854. - 
—New Brunswick Review, 1854. 

Besides these articles, a number of independent works have been published.—Chr. 
Wordsworth, The Church of Rome in the third Century, with Reference to Hippolytus. 
1853.— W.. Elfe Tayler, Analysis of Hippolytus.. 1854.—Lenormant, Controverse sur les 
Philos. d’Origine. Par. 1853.—Dollinger, Hippolytus u. Kallistus. 1854.—Cruice, Etudes 


570 WORKS ON THE SECOND PERIOD. 


sur les Philosoph. Paris, 1853.—C. Wordsworth, Remarks on the Preface to the last 
Edition of Bunsen’s Hippolytus. 1855.—Volckmar, Hippolytus. -1855. 

§ 66, p. 225. Theology in the West; Tertullian and Cyprian Tertullian, p. 226.—Opera, 
ed. Oehler. 1852—4,3 tom.—K. Hesselberg, Tertullian’s Lehre. Dorpat, 1848.—Neander, 
Antignostiken, Geist ds. T. 2te Ausg. 1849. (Eng. transl. in part in Bohn’s Library, 
appended to Neander’s- “ Planting,” ete.)— Tertullian, Transl. in ‘ Libr. of Fathers,” vol. 
1. 2d ed—Bishop Kaye, Eccl. Hist. of second and third Cent. illustr., in Tertull. 3d 
ed. 1848.—Engelhardt, Tertullian als Schriftsteller, in Zeitshcrift f. d. hist. Theol., 1852. 
_ —De Corona Militis. Edit. by G. Curry. Camb. 1853.—Apology of T., with English 
notes, by H. A. Woodham. 2d ed. Camb.—Leopold, doctr. Tert. de Baptismo, in Zeit- 
schrift f. d. hist. Theol., 1854.—Hauber, T. gegen d. zweite Ehe, in Stud. wu. Krit., 1845. 
—(CEuvres de T., trad. en Frangais, by M. de Genoude. 2d ed., 3. 8. 1852.—Uhlhorn, 
Fundamenta Chronologiae Tertullian. Gotting. 1852. 

English Translations—The seconde Booke of Tertullian unto his Wyf, etc., by John 
Hoper. 1550.—Apology, by H. B. Brown, 4. Lond. 1655.—Tertullian’s Ajology, & 1788. 
Transl., preface by W. Reeves, 2.8. 1716.—Prescriptions, by T. Betty. Oxf. 1772.—Ad- 
dress to Scapula Tertullus. Transl. by Sir D. Dalrymple, 12. Edinb. 1790. 

_Cyprian.—Life and Times of Cyprian, by Geo. Ayliffe Poole. Oxf. 1840.—Shepherd, 
Hist. of Ch. of Rome. 1852. He doubts the authenticity of all the letters of Cyprian — 
Id., Five Letters to Dr. Maitland. 1852-54. Cf. Christ. Remembr., 1853, and Dublin 
Review, 1852.—_Dodwell, Dissertationes Cyprianicae. 1704.—Bishop Sage, Principles 
of Cyprianic Age, 2.8. Edinb. 1846.—Libr. of Fathers, vols. 3 and 17, Cyprian’s Treat- 
ises ‘and Epistles .—Cyprian, in Rudelbach, christl. Biographie, and in Bohringer.—Dr. 
Nevins, Cyprian and his Views, in Mercersb.“Rev., 1852.—M. F. Hyde, Cypr. de Unitate. 
1852.—Grabinger, Cypriani libri de Unitate. ive 1853. Other Eng. trans]. : Sweete 
and devoute Sermon, by Syr Thos. Eliot: 1534, 1539, 1560.—On the Lorde’s Praier, by 
T. Paynell. 1539.—Unity of Church, by J. Fell. Oxf. 1681.—Disc. to Donatus, by J. 
Tunstall. 1716.—His whole Works, by N. Marshall. 1717. 

§ 67, p. 233. Apostolic Constitutions and Canons.—In Bunsen’s Hippolytus is an elabo- 
rate attempt to restore these to their original form: Analecta Ante-Nicaena.— Wedgewood 
Apostol. Constitutions. London, 1843.— Whiston, Prim. Christ: revived, 4. 8. 1711.— 
Chase, The Apostol. Constitutions, Whiston’s Version, and Krabbe’s Essay. New York, 
1848.—G. Ueltzen, Constitutiones Apostolicae. Greek trans]. and notes, 8. 1853. Cf. 
_ Leitschrift f. d. hist. Theol., 1854.—Apostol. Constitutions, in Christ. Remembr., 1854.— 
—The Athiopic Didascalia, ed. by T. P. Platt. Lond. 1834. 

§ 68. History of the Hierarchy, p. 234.—W. E. L. Ziegler, Versuch einer pragmat. Ge- 
schichte d. Kirchlichen Verfassungsformen in d. 6 ersten Jahrhund. Leips. 1798.—J. W. 


Bickell, Gesch. ds. Kirchenrechts. 1849.—Modhler, die Einheit in d.: Kirche, d. Kirchen- , 


verfassung d. drei ersten Jahrhunderte.  1830.—Schmid, d. Bisthumssynode, 2. 8. 1851. 
—Callistus (and Zephyrinus), in his Episcopate and character: cf. the works of Bunsen, 
Dollinger, and Wordsworth, upon Hippolytus. 

§ 70.. Divine Service, p. 244. Sigs and Hippolytus, Analecta Ante-Nicaena, 3.8; Re- 
liquiae Liturgicae. 

Srconp Prrrop, A.D. 324-726, p. 268, sq.—General Works on this Period.—Fleury’s 
Hist. of Christ. 381-451. . Transl. and edited by J. H. Newman, 3.8. London.—Milman, 
Hist. of Lat. Christ., 3 (to be 5), 8: Lond. 1854.—Jsaac Taylor’s Ancient Christianity, 2. 
8. 4thed.. Lond. 1844.—E. von Lasaulz, d. Untergang des Hellenismus, und die Ein- 
ziehung seiner Tempelgiiter von d. christlichen Kaisern. Mimchen, 1854. 

A. de Broglie, Hist. du Christianisme et de la Société Romaine au ive. Siécle, 4. 8. 
Par. 1855.—Capefigue, Hist. de l’Eglise (second portion, 2. 8). Par. 1853. 

_ J. B, Heard, The Extinction of Christianity in the Roman Empire, in Relation to the 
Evidences of Christianity (Hulsean). 1851.—Attila, par Amédee Thierry, Rev. des deux 
‘Mondes. 1852. 

Influence of Christianity on Greek and Roman "World. nat Schmidt, Essai historique sur 
la Société dans le monde Romain, et sur sa Transformation. Paris, 1853 (prize essay). 


x a: 
©, bine cea 


- =. oe 


WORKS ON THE FATHERS. 571° 


—Etudes Historiques sur l’Influence de la Charité durant les prem. Siécles Chrét. par 
Etienne Chastel. Paris, 1853 (prize essay).—F"’. de Champagny, la Charité Chrétienne dans 
tes premiers Siécles. Paris, 1854.—A. Tollemer, Giuvres de Miséricorde, 12. Par. 1853. 

Villemain, Nouveaux Essais sur |’Infl. du Christianisme dans le monde Gree et Latin. 
Paris, 1855.—Ozanam, de ha Civilisation au cinquiéme Siécle, 2. 8.- Paris, 1855. 

H. J. Leblanc, Essai‘sur Etude des Lettres profanes dans les premiers Siécles.. Paris, 
1852.— Troplong, de l’Influence du Christianisme sur le droit civil des Romains. Paris, 
1853.—C. M. Kennedy, Influence of Christianity on International Law (Hulsean). 1855. 

§ 75, p. 271. Constantine.— Burckhardt, die Zeit Constantins des.Grossen. 1853.—Rev. 
B. H. Cooper, The Free Chureh of ancient Christendom, and its Subjugation by Constan- 
tine. Lond. 1851.—Jd., Life and Times of Constantine.—Life of Constantine, by Eu- 
sebius, transl. Lond. 1846.—Manso, Leben Constantins, 8.. 1817.— Arendt, in Tub. Quar- 
talschrift, 1834.—Christ. Rev., iv.—Lit: and Theol. Rev., vol. 6—The Vision of Constan- 
tine is investigated by Passy, Academie des Sciences Morales et Polit. 1846.—Polus 
(Cardinal); De Baptismo Constantini Magni Imperatoris. 1556.—Panegyric of Constan- 
tine the Great, by Const. Accopoliti, from MSS. by Constantine Simonides. ‘Lond. 1854. 

§ 76. Julian the Apostate, p. 278.—F.. Strauss, d. Romantiker auf d. Throne, oder Julian 
d. Abtriinnige. 1847.—N. Bangs, in Meth. Quar. Rev., vol. 9.—Neander’s Work on Julian, 
transl., 12. New York, 1848.— Wiggers, in Zeitschrift f. hist. Theol., vol: 7.—H. Schulze, 
de Philos. Jul. 1839.—Lifeof Julian. Lond. 1682; Orations, 1693.—Auer’s Julian, 1855. 

§ 81, sg.—The Arian Controversy, p. 294.—Newman’s Translation of Fleury’s Eccl. Hist. 
381-451, 3.8. 1838.—IJd., The Arians of fourth Cent.—Maimbourg, History of Arianism, 
by W. Webster, 2.4. 1728.—J. A. Stark, Versuch einer Gesch. ds. Arianismus.—Klose, 
in Real-Encycl. f. d. Prot. Theologie—T'’. G. Hassencamp, Historia Arianae Riguroversitie. 
1845.—Bishop Kaye, in his ‘‘ Council of Nice.” Lond. 1854. 

Whitaker’s Origin of Arianism. . 

The Council of Nice, p. 297.—Bishop Kaye, Some Account of the Council of Nice, in 
Connection with Life of Athanasius. Lond. 1853: ef. Christ. Remembr. 1854.—Bishop 
Forbes, Explan. of Nicene Creed. Lond. 1852.—Marheinecke, in his Dogmengesch. 1850. 
—Baur and Dorner, in their works on the Trinity and Incarnation.—Petavius, in his 
‘Theol. Dogm.,” 3.fol. tom. 2.—Frohschammer, d. Vorsitz auf. d. Synode zu N. . (Beitrage 
zur Kirchengesch. 1850.) 

Bishop Bull, Defensio Fid. Nicaen. in his Works, 8. 8.—Jd., Disc. on Doctrine of Cath- 
olic Church.— Sherlock, Doctrine of Trinity. 1690.— Waterland, Vindication of Christ’s 
Divinity: Works. 1843.—Hampden, in Bampton Lects.* 3d ed... 1848. 

The Athanasian Creed:i—History, by Dr. Waterland: Works, vol. 1.—J. Redcliff, Creed 
of Athanasius, illustrated from the Scriptures and Writings df the Fathers, 8. London, 
1844. 

§ 84, p. 314— Eusebius Pamph., bishop of Caesarea: Evang. Demonstrat., libri x. rec. 
T. Gaisford, 2. 8.—Contra Hieroclem et Marcellum, ed. by T. Gaisford.. Oxon.—Arme- 
nian transl. of Chronicles of Eusebius, from Niebuhr, in Journal of Sacr. Lit., 1853, ’4.— 
Marginalia of Pearson on Eusebius, in Journ. Class. and Sacred Philol., 1854.—Hollenberg, 
on Schwegler’s and Burton’s edition of the Eccl. Hist., im Studien u.. Kritiken, 1855.—The- 
ophania in the Syriac, and transl. by Dr. Samuel Lee, 2.8. Lond.—Tracts by Eusebius, 
in Mai’s Patrum Nova Biblioth., tom 3. 1853—Lawson, in Christ. Exam., vol. 18. 

Athanasius.—Bishop Kaye, in his “Council of Nice.” 1853.—Athanasius against the 
Arians, transl. by Newman, Lib. Fathers, vols. 8. 19; Historical Tracts, vol. 13.—The 
Festal Letters of Athanasius, from Syriac, with Notes, by W. Cureton, 1848; to be transl. 
by H. Burgess; German transl. by Lasrow, 852: cf. Journal Saered Lit., 1855.—Orations,. 
transl. by Parker. 1718.—Athanasius and Arius, in Christ. Remembr., 1854; Christian 
Examiner, 1855,—Opera Dogmatica Selecta, ed. by Thilo, in “ Bibl. Patrum Graee. Dog- 
matica,” vol. 1. Leips. 1853. 

Basil the Great—Christian Review, July, 1854.—Opera Dogmat., in Thilo’s Bibl. Patrans 
Graec. Dogm., vol. 2. 1854.—Basil, Select Passages from. Lond. 1810.—Holy Loxe of 
heavenly Wisdom, transl..by TJ’. Stocker. 1594. 


572 CHRYSOSTOM AND AUGUSTINE. 


Gregory of Nazianzum—Ulimann’s Life, transl. in-part by G. V.Cox. Lond: 1851.— 
Piper’s Evang. Kalend. 1852.—Journal ‘Sacr. Lit., 1852; ‘Westminster Rev., vol. 56.—Her- 
genrother, Gregory’s “‘ Lehre v. d. Dreieinigkeit.” Regensb. 1850.— Tule; Bibl. Patrum 
Graec. Dogm., vol. 2. 1854. 

Gregory of Nyssa.—Doctrina de ‘eesti natura illustravit et cum. Origeniana compa- 
ravit, by E. @. Moeller. Halle, 1852. 

Fiilary.—In the Spicilegium Solesmense, ed. by Pitra, 1853, fragments of a commentary 
on Paul are vindicated for. Hilary ; ef. Christ. Remembr., July, 1853. Against this, and 
for Theodorus, Jacobi, in the “* Deutsche Zeitschrift,” 1854. 

Jerome.—Collembet, Hist. d’Hieronyme. 1845 (in French, 1847).—Jerome and his 
Times, by S.-Osgood, in Bibl. Sacra, vol. 5. : 

Ambrose.—Rudelbach, in “ Christl. Biog.” Bd. 1.—Bohringer, in his ‘‘ Kirche Christi,” 
and in the Real-Encycl. f. Prot. Theol—Ambrosian MSS., Quar. Rev., vol. 16.—Tract 
on the Holy Virginity, by ‘A. J. Christie. Oxf. 1843. 

Cyril—Lectures. 3d ed. *‘ Lib. Fathers,” vol: 2.—Thirteen works in Mai’s ‘‘ Nova 
Bibliotheca,” 1853, vol: 2. : 

Ephraem Syrus—H. Burgess, Transl. of Hymns and Homilies. Lond. 1853; cf. Kitto’s 
Journal, 1853.—Jd., Repentance of Nineveh. 1854.—Das Leben ds. Eph. Syr., J. Alsle- 
ben. 1853.—Cardinal Wiseman, in his ‘‘ Essays,” vol. 3 (from Dublin Review):—North 
British, Aug. 18533; Journal of Sacred Lit., Jan. 1854; Church Review, 1852. 

Theodor of Mopsuestia——Commt. in N. T., ed. Fritsche. 1847.—Doctrina de imagine 
Dei, Dorner, 1844; cf. Dorner’s Person. Christi—Commentar. in Spicileg. Solesm. (see 
under Hilary, above). 

John Chrysostom:—The first yol. of Neander’s Life. Transl. by J. C. Stapleton. Lend. 
1845.— Bohringer, in “‘ Die Kirche Christi.”—In the ‘‘ Lib. of Fathers,” Oxf., translation 
of Chrysostom in vols. 4. 5. 6. 7.9. 11. 12. 14. 15. 27. 34.—Chrysostom on ‘‘ Priesthood,” 
with notes and Life, by H: M. Mason. Philad. 1826.—Bibl. Sacra, vol. 1. Life by J. D. 
Butler —Kitto’s Journal, vol. 1. by Eadie—S. Osgood, in North Amer., vol. 62.—C. P. 
Krauth, in Evangel. Rev., vol. 1—Sermons of Chrysostom, in Christian Rev., vol. 12.— 
Perthes, Life of Chrysostom, transl. Boston, 1854. 

Chrysostom, ‘‘ No man is hurted but of hym-selfe.” Transl. by T.. Luprette. London, 
1542.—On the “‘ Priesthood,” by H. Hollier, Lond. 1728; by J. Bunce, Lond. 1759.—“ Se- 
lect Passages,” by H. S. Boyd. Lond. 1810. 

Synesius.—Quae exstant Opera omnia, ed. by J. G. Krabinger, tom. 1. 1850.—Hom. 
ilies ; trad. pour la prem. fois, par B. Kolbe. Berl. 1850. 

§ 86, p. 326.—Priscillian—J. M. Mandernach, Geschichte ds. Priscillianismus. 1851. 
—Defense of Priscillian, by Dr. Lardner ; Works, vol. 4. 

§ 87. Augustine and Pelagius. — Augustine, in “ Lib. of Fathers,” Oxf., vol. 1: Confes- 
_ sions, by S. B: Pusey (rep. in Boston); vols. 16 and 20, Sermons; 22, Treatises ; 16, 20, 
Sermons ; 24, 25, 30, 32, Psalms ; 26, 29, John.— Trench, Essay on Augustine as Inter- 
preter, and Comm. on Serm. on Mount.—Life, etc., by Schaff. 1854.—Life and Labors. 
Lond. 1853. (Bagster).—R. Emerson, Transl. of first vol. of Wiggers, ‘‘ Augustin. and Pe- 
lagianism.” Andover.—Princeton Rev., July, 1854.—Aug. and Pelag., Am. Bib. Repos., 
vol. 3. from Neander; vol. 5. by H. P. Tappan.—Christian Rev., vols. 5, 15; Brit. Quar. 
Rev., vol. 6.—Augustine as Preacher, Bibl. Repos. ., vol. 3. and vol. 7, 2d series —Osgood, 
on Augustine and his Times, in ‘‘ Studies in Christian Biogr.”—Zeller, on Augustine’s 
Doctrine of Sin, in Theol. Jahrb., 1854.—Ponjoulat, Hist. de St. Aug. 3d ed. 2.- Paris, 
1852.—Mozley, Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination. London, 1855. 


Two hundred new Sermons of Augustine,’in Mai, Patrum Nova Biblioth., vol. 1—De - 


Civitate Dei, ed, Strange. Colon. 1850, ’51. ‘ 

L. Gangauf, Metaphys. Psychologie ds. heilig. August. Augsb. 1852. 

Augustine, Of the Citie of God, with the Comm. of ZL. Vives. Englished by J. H. 2d 
ed. 1620.—Manuell, London, 1577.—Meditations, by Stanhope. London, 1745.—A new 
French transl. of the ‘‘ Civitas Dei,” by Saisset, 4.12. 1855. 

Shicksale d. Augustinischen Anthropologie von d. Verdammung ds. Semipelagianismus 





ee ee ee i 





LT eI ee oe ee ee ee ee 








HISTORY OF THE PAPACY. 573 


auf, d. Synoden zu Orange u. Valence 529 bis zur Reaction ds. Ménchs Gottschalck f. d. 
August, Dr. G. F. Wiggers, in Zeitschrift f. d. historische Theologie, 1854, ’5. 

Julius Miller, Der Pelagianismus, ein Vortrag. Deutsche Zeitschrift. 1855. ; 

Vincens of Lirens, p. 343.—Commonitorium, ed. alt. Oxford, with a translation, On 
him, see Hefele, in Theol. Quartalschrift, 1854. 

English translations : J. Procter, Lond. 1554; A. P., Lond. 1559; Luke, Lond. 1611.— 
W. Reeves, with the Apolog. of Primitive Fathers, 2. 8. Lond. 1716. 

§ 88, Nestorian Controversy, p. 343. Onthe Views of Nestorius, in Zeitschrift f. d. Luth. 
Theol., 1854.—Nestorius and the Council of Ephesus, in Christ. Exam., 1853.—On the 
present Nestorians, 7’. Laurie.. Bost. 1853; J. Perkins, im Journal Sacr. Lit., 1853. Cf. the 
works of Baur, Dorner, and Meier, on the Trinity and Incarnation.—E. Robinson, in North 
American, vol. 57. ; in Am. Bibl. Repos., vol. 6 (second series).—G. P.. Badger, The Nes- 
torians and their Rituals, 2. Lond. 1852. 

Theodoretus, Comment. in omnes b. Pauli Epist: Pars 1. Oxon. 1852, in Bibl. lint 
Eccles. Cath., ete: 

§ 94. Sitie'y of the Roman Patriarchs, and of the Hierarchy in the West, p.377.—On the 
Claims and Succession of the Papacy—Barrow on the Papal Supremacy, M‘Crie’s edi- 
tion.—Riddle’s Hist. of Papacy, 2. 8. 1854 (from Schréckh and others); cf. Dublin Rev., 
1854.—G. A. F. Wilks, The Popes. Lond. 1851.—Passaglia, de Praerogativis. B. S. 
Petri, 2. 8. Rom. 1850.—Allies, Digest of Passaglia. Lond. 1853.—Ed. Burton, Power 
of the Keys; Works, 1. 1838.—J. Pearson, de Serie et Success. prim. Rom: Episcop. 
1688.—Dodwell on the same subject.—Palmer on the Church, vol. 2. p. 451-529.—Collette, 
The Pope’s Supremacy. Lond. 1852.—André Archinaud, Les Origines de I’Eglise Ro- 
maine, 2.8. Geneve, 1852. 

' Storia dei Papi, Bianchi-Giovini (8 vols. published in Switzerland). 

Dowling’s History of Romanism. ~6th ed.8. New York, 1845.—J. A. Wylie, The Pa- 
pacy. ~Lond. 1852.—Philippe de Boni, de la Papanté. 1852 (condemned at Rome).—Pous- 
sel, Origine du principat Romain. Avignon, 1852.—F’. Maassen, d. Primat ds. Bischofs 
von Rom, u. d. alten Patriarchalkirchén. Bonn, 1853.—J. Meyrick, Papal Supremacy 
tested by Antiquity. Lond. 1855,—Elliott on Romanism, 2.8. New York.—Ellendorf, 
d. Primat. d. Romischen Pabste, 2.8. 1841.—Kenrick, The Primacy, 3d ed.’ 1855. 

Edict of Valentinian III. on Papal Supremacy, in Deutsche Zeitscrift, 1855. 

Routh, Tres breves Tractatus (the third, S. Irenaei illustrata Jyocc, in qua Ecclesia Ro- 
mana commeroratur), Oxon. 1854; ef. Pusey; Notes to Sermon on the Rule of Faith. 
1854. 

On the States of the Church—John Miley, History of.. Transl. into French by C. Quin- 
Lacroiz. Paris, 1851.— Hasse (Prof. H.), Die Vereinigung der geistlichen u. der welt- 
lichen Obergewalt im Rom. Kaiserstaat. 1852.—Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. de la Pa- 
trimonie de St. Peter. 1853.—Sugenheim, Geschichte d. Entstehung u. = des 
Kirchenstaats (prize essay), 8. Leips. 1854. 

Daunon, Essai Hist. sur la puissance Temporelle des Papes (written at the instance 
of Napoleon); see Quar. Rev.; Oct. 1853. 

Febronius, de Statu Eccles. et Legit. Potest. Rom. Pontif., 3.4. 1763, sp; Sebastes 
(Claude), de Primatu Papae, etc: Lugd. Bat. 1645. ; 

- History of Popery. London, 1837.—Temporal Power of Popes, Christ. Rev., 1851— __ 
Brownson’s Quarterly, 1851, ’2,’3.—Papal Supremacy, Dublin Rev., 1852.—The Primacy, 
Dubl. Rev., 1853. 

Christ. Remembr., 1855, on the papal and royal Supremacy. 

Synod of Sardica, p. 379, in Shepherd’s Church of Rome, 1852; its Acts discussed —Bar- 
row on the Papal Supremacy (also.a mi discovered treatise of Barrow).—Scotch aa 
Journal, April and May, 1852. 

Leo, p. 392.— St. Cheron, vie de Leo, 8. Paris (to be translated). 

§.95. History of Monasticism, p. 397—De Monachatus Originibus et Causis, by G. F. 
Mangold. Marburg, 1852.—P. Maclean, Monks and Monasteries. London, 1854.—Early 
History of Monasticism, by R. Emerson, in Bibl. Sacra, vol. 1.—Ruffner’s' Fathers of the 


. 
* 


S74 CHRISTIANITY IN GERMANY. 


Desert, 2. 12. 1850.—S. P. Day, Monastic Institutions: their Origin, ete. Lond. 1846, 
vol. 89.—Jsaac Taylor’s Ancient Christianity, 2.8. 4thed. Lond. 1844.—Eastern Mona- 
_ chism; Mendicants founded by Gotama Budha, from Singalese MSS., by R. Spence 
Hardy, Lond. 

§ 102, p. 340. Celibacy—See Taylor's Ancient Chichi saitvy-—<aosoals Hist. of Celib- 
acy. Lond. 1841 (against Taylor). 

Du Célibat, par L. Ant. A. Pacy (bishop of Algiers): Par. 1852 -—Untersuchungen uber 
a. Romische Ehe, A. Rossbach,2 Thle. Stuttg. — 

§ 106, p. 455. Attempts at Reformation. 

Jovinian and Vigilantius.—De Jovin. et Vigil. purior. Doctr-G. B. Lindner. 1839.— 
Vigilantius and his Times, 8. Lond. 1845. 

§ 108, p. 469. Goths, etc—C. J. Revillont, de l’Arianisme des peuples Germaniques, 
qui ont envahil’Empire Romain. Paris, 1850. 

Ulphilas, and his Gothie Version of the Scriptures, by S. Loewe,in Kitto’s Journal, vol. 

3.—Gothica Versio, ed. C. D. Castillionaeus, 4. Medio]. 1829.—Continued, the Pauline 
Epistles. 1829~'35.—Gothische Bibeliibersetzung, Fulda u. Zahn, 4, Weissenfels. 1805. 
—Versio Gothica, cum Interpret., E. Benzelii, ed. E. Lye, 4. Oxon. 1750. Fragmenta> 
vers. Ulphil., u. F..A. Knittell. Upsal, 1763.—Codex argenteus s. sacrorum evangelio- 
rum versionis Gothicae Fragmenta, qise iterum recognita, ete. Ed. Dr. Andr. Uppstrém, 
4, Upsaliae, 1855. 

§ 112, p. 382. Athiopia.—Geddes, History of Church of Athiopia. Lond. 1696.—Id., 
Hist. of the Church of Malabar. ‘Lond. 1694. 

Armenia.—Samuljan, Die Bekehrung Armeniens durch d. heiligen Gregorius illuminator. 
1844.— Bodenstedt, d. Einfihrung ds. Christenth. in Armenien. 1850.~—Jngigi, Antiquitates 
Armen., 3.4. 1855.~-Zur Urgeschichte d. Armenier. Philol. Versuch.. Berl. 1854.—Ar- 
menia, Hist. Dogm. et Liturg., etc., 8, Paris, 1855.—Die Entwickelung d. Armenischen 
‘Kirche vom Evangelio zum Evangelio, K. N. Pischon, in Deutsche Zeitschrift, Dec. 1854, 

§ 114, p. 389. Dionysius the Areopagite—Opera omnia quae exstant, ed. B. Corderius. 
Leips. 1854. 

Boethius, De Consolatione. Transl.into English by Chaucer ; also by Lord Preston, with 
Notes,.1695; 2d ed. 1712, by Ridpath. Lond. 1785.—G. Baur, de Boethio. Darmst. 1841. 

Gregory the Great, p. 389.—Gregor. u. seine Zeit, by G. Pfahler, Bd.1. Francf. 1852.— 
G. F. Wiggers, de Greg. M. ejusque placitis Anthropol. Rostock. 1838.—Markgraf, de 
G. M. Vita.- Berol. 1845.—Lau, Greg. I., Leben, u.s. w.. Leips. 1845.—Boéhringer, in 
_ Kirche u. Zeugen. 1.—Gregory’s Views on Augustinianism, by Wiggers, in Zeitschrift f. 
d. hist. Theol., 1854.—Gregory’s Morals on Book of Job, in Oxf. Lib. of #., vols. 18, 21, 
23, 31.—His Dialogues, transl. in the Metropolitan, Balt. 1854.—Maimbourg, Hist. du Pon- 
tif. de S. Grég. Paris, 1686.—King Alfred, transl. Gregory’s Pastoral, publ. in Aelfred 
Regis Res Gest. Lond. 1574.—Collectanea out of Gregory and Bernard. Oxf. 1618. 

Gregory of Tours, p. 390.—Kirchengesch. d. Franken, im Deutschen. Wiirz. 1849.— 
Zehn Bicher, W. Giesebrecht, 2. 1851.—Vie de S. Grégoire, par Abbé A. Dupuy, 8 
Paris, 1854. : 

Canon Law.— Wasserschleben, Beitrage zur Geschichte des vorgratianischen Kirchen- 
rechtsquellen. 1848.—Bickell’s Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, 1. 1843. Cf. in Niedner’s 
Kirchengeschichte.—Geddes Tracts, vol. 2.—F’. Walter, Lehrbuch, llth ed. 1854. 

§ 119, p. 407. Benedict and the Benedictines, Edinb. Rev., vol. 89. 

§ 123, p: 419; § 134, p. 457. Christianity in Germany, and the Franks.— W. Kraft, Kirch- 
engesch. Deutschlands, 1. 1855 (Ursprung d. Deutschen Kirche). —Rettberg, Kirchengesch. 
Deutschlands, 1. Die Franken bis auf Karl d. Gross. 1848.—P. Roth, Gesch. d. Bene- 
ficialwesens, bis ins 10te Jahr. Erlang. 1850; cf. Brandes, in Gersdorf Rep., 1851—A. F. 
Ozanam, la Civilisation Chrétienne chez les Franes. . Par. 1849.—Destombes, Hist. de St. 
Amand, et du Christ. chez les Francs. Paris, 1850 (ultramontane).—Anschar, Life and 
Times, in Bohringer, and in Christ. Exam., 1853.—Adalbert of Prague, Leben v. Torn- 
waldt, in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol., 1853.—Thé Conversion of the Northern Nations, in 
New Brunswick Rev:, 1854.—Adalbert, Erzb. v. Hamburg, C. Griinhagen. Leipsic, 1854. ~~ 





OLD PRITIES. CHURCH. 675 


Ozanam (A. F.), Etudes Germeniques, 2. 8; La Germanie avant le Christianisme, 
1847. 

H. Ruckert, Culturgesch. ds. Deutschen Volkes, 2.8. 1854.—Leo, SS ade liber d, 
Ursprung ds. Deutschen Volkes u. Reichs, vol. 1. 1852. 

Iuden, Gesch. d. Deutschen Volkes, 12 Bde. 1825-’37.—Kohlrausch, transl: by Haas. 
New York, 1847.—Menzel, by G. Horrocks, 3:12. Lond. 1848.—J. J. Mascon, Hist. An- 
cient Germans. Transl. by Lediard, 2.4. London, 1833.—Stenzel, Gesch. d. Deutschen 
unter d, Frankischen Kaisern, 2. 8. Leips. 1838,—Pfister, Geschich. d. Deutschen, 5. 8. 
Hamb. 1829~35.—G. H. Pertz; Monumenta Germ. Hist., 1-14. 1826-54. 

§ 127, p. 434. Mohammed.— Bush's Life of Mohammed (Harper's Lib.).. 1830.—Prideauz, 
Life of Mohammed. 4thed. 1708. 

Foster’s Mohammedanism Unveiled. 1829.— Weil, Mohammed. 1843; Geschichte d. 
Chalifen, 3. 1851 (to A.D. 1258),—J. L. Merrick, Life and Religion of Mohammed, as 
contained in the Sheeah Traditions of the Hyat-ul-Kooloob, from the Persian. Boston, 
1850.—Hammer-Purgstall, Gemaldesaal d. Lebensbeschreibungen. | Leips. 1837.—Life of 
Mohammed from original Sources, by Dr. A. Sprenger, pt. 1. Lond. 1832.—Mohammed 
and the Arab. Emp., by Prof. Koeppen, in New York Quarterly, 1854.—F. A. Neale, Rise 
and Progress of Islamism, 2. London, 1854.—Christ. Remembr., Jan. and April, 1855.— 
Kitto’s Journal, vol. 1, article Mohammed.—Irving, Mohammed and his Successors.— 
North Am. Rev., vol. 63; North British, vol. 13; Brownson’s Quar., vol. 4; Foreign Quar., 
vol. 12. 

The Koran, transl. of Arabic text, by Kasimirski, Newed. Paris, 1852.—Refutation 
of the Koran, in Mai’s Patr. nov. Biblioth., tom. 4. 1853.—Sale’s Translation of the Ko- 
ran, 2d ed., 2.8. London, 1844.—Selections from the Koran, by Lane. 1844,.—Coranus 
Arabice. Ed. G.M. Redslob. Lips. 1855. 
~ § 132. Spanish Church, p. 450—Manual razonado de Historia y Legislation de la Iglesia 
desde sei Establecimienta hasta... 4. Madrid, 1845; cf. Stud. u. Krit., 1848.— Dunham, 
Spain and Portugal, 5 vols. (Lardner’s Cab. Cyclop.).— St. Hilaire, Hist. de |’ Espagne de- 
puis les premiers Temps. New ed., 4.8. Paris, 1853.—Papal Dominion in Spain, For. 
Rev.,; vol. 1.—Gothic Laws’ of Spain, Edinb. Rev., vol. 31. 

§ 126, p. 429; § 133, p. 452. Old British, Irish, and Scotch Churches.—De Ecclesiasti- 
cae Briton. Scotorumque fontibus disseruit, C. G. Scholl. 1851.—English Church His- 
torians, from Bede to Foxe, 8. 8. London, 1853, s¢—T. Wright, British Lit. Biography, 
Anglo-Saxon and Roman Period, 2.8. 1851.—North British Rev., 1853, Account of early 
Works on British History.—Dugdale’s Monasticon Anglicanum, 8 fol.’ 1846.—Historia 
Britonorum of Nennius, repr. Irish Arch. Soc., ed. J. H. Todd. 1850.—Anglo-Sax. Poetae 
atq. Seript. prosaici, edit. L. Ettmiller. 1850.—J. W. Ebeling, d. Geschichtschreiber 
Englands. 1852 (cf. Lond. Atheneum, May 6, 1852).—Gildas et Nennius, Hist. Britono- 
rum, ed. Stevenson, 2. 8 (English Hist. Soc.).—Rog. de Wendover, Chronica, ed. Cowes 4 
(English Hist. Soc.).— William Malmsb., Gesta rerum Angl., ed. Hardy (English Phat. 
Soc.).—Bede, by the same Society, 2. 8. 

Rev. B. Poste, Britannic Researches, Rectifications of Ancient Brit. Hist., 8. 1853.— 
The Anglo-Saxon Legend of St. Andrew and St. Veronica, ed. for Camb. Antiq. Society 
by C. W. Goodwin. 1854.—Polydore Virgil, Engl. Hist., transl. by Ellis, 4. . London, 
1844 (Camden Soc.).—Geoffrey of Monmouth, Brit. Hist., ed. by J. A. Giles. London, ~ 
.1842.—Surtees Publ. Society, 28 vols. to 1854, illustrating the early Eng. Eccl. History, 
e. g., Anglo-Saxon and early English Psalter and Hymnarium ; the Pontifical of Egbert, 
Archbishop of York (732-766), issued in 1853.—H. Herbert, Britannia, 2. 4. Lond. 1836- 
*41.—Eccleston, Introd. to English Antiquities, 8. Lond. 1847. 

J. M. Kemble, Codex diplomat. aevi Saxonici (Engl. Hist.-Soc.), 1-6. Lond. 1839-"48. 
—Id., The Saxons in England, 2.8. 1851—Wm. B. M‘Cabe, A Catholic Hist. of En- 
gland: the Anglo-Saxon Period, 3. 8. 1850-54.—Sharon Turner, Hist. Anglo-Saxons. 
7th ed., 3.8. 1851—J. J. A. Worsae, The Danes and Norwegians in England. Lond. 
1852.—Sir Francis Palgrave, Hist. of Anglo-Saxons, 12. Lond. 1847.—Id,, Anglo-Saxon 
Period, 2.4. 1832.—Lingard’s Antiquities of Anglo-Saxon Church, 2. 8. -1806.—Henry. 





576 EARLY HISTORY OF BRITAIN. 


Soames, Lat. or figia Church in Anglo-Saxon Times. 1848 (reply to Lingard).— Thos. 
Wood, Ancient Britons. 1846.—De Bonnechose, Hist. des quatre Conquétes d’Angleterré. 
1852 (received the Montegon prize). —Remains of Pagan Saxondom, by J: G. Akerman. 
1851 (Soc. Antiq. Lend.) —England under the Popish Yoke, by EZ. C. Armstrong. Oxf. 
1850. 

P. F. Tytler, Hist: of Scotland, 9.8. London, 1842-"44,—Burton’s Hist., 2.8. 1854.— 
Analecta Scotia, 2.8. Edinb., 1834-’37.— Dalrymple, Antiq. of Scotland, 4. 1800.—D. 
Wilson, The Archeology ‘and prehistoric Annals_of Scotland. Edinb. 1851 (cf. North 
British, 1852).—Dempsteri, Historia Eccles. gentis Scotorum, sive de Scriptoribus Scotis, 
2.4. 1829 (Bannatyne Club).—Stuart (A.), Caledonia Romana;4. 2ded. 1852.—Early 
Scottish History and its Exponents, Retrosp, Rev., No. 3. 1853. 

‘D’ Alton, Hist. of Ireland, from earliest Period to 1245, 2:8. Dubl. 1845.—The Annals | 
of Ireland, ed. by P. M‘Dermott, 4.. Dublin, 1847.— Moore’s Hist., 4. 1846.—J. Lanigan, 
Eccl. History of Ireland. 2d ed. 1829, 2. 8—Robert King, plieg Introd. to early His- 
‘tory of Primacy of Armagh. 1854.— Todd, Hymns of ancient Irish Church, 1852.—O’ Don- 
‘ovan, Book of Rights ofancient Kings of Ireland. 1847.—Ancient Irish Brehon Laws, to 


_ be published after the Manner of the Scotch and Welsh Collections.—Annals of Kingdom 


of Ireland by the Four Masters, to 1616; ed. by J. O'Donovan, 7.4. Dublin, 1851 (cf. 
Quar. Rev., Aug., 1853). 

Annals of Ireland, by J. Nave, ed. by R. Butler. 1841.—Latin Annalists of Ireland, 
Clyn and Dowling, ed. by R. Butler. 1848.—Shee, Irish Church, History, ete. London, 
1852.— Williams, Eccl: Antiquities: the Cymry.—History of Wales till incorporated with 
England, by B. B. Woodward. London, 1853.— W. J. Reeves, Cambro-British Saints of 
fifth and succeeding Centuries, from MSS. Llandoverey. 1854 (for the Welsh MSS. 
Society).—St. Patrick and his Birth-place, Notes and Queries, vol. 5. ; 

Columban.—Arnold’s Theol, Critic, vol. 1.. 1851.+—Scotch Ecclesiastical Journal, 1852.— 
Notes on the Study of the Bible by our Forefathers (Columban, Patrick, Gildas), in Jour- 
nal of Class. and Sacred Philol., 1854.—Knottenbelt, de Columbano. Lugd. 1839. 

J. Jamieson, Hist. Account of the ancient Culdees of Iona, and of their Settlement in 


Scotland, England, and Ireland, 4. Edinb. 1811: 


_E. Churten, Early English Church. 1841 —Bates, College Lect. on Eccl. Hist.” 1853. 
—Jeremy Collier, Eccl. Hist. of England. New ed., 9.8. 1845.—Giles, History of An- 
cient Britons to the Invasion of the Saxons, 2. 8.— Wm. Hales, Origin of Church of Brit- 
ish Isles.—Chronicles of the British Church previous to Augustine. 2d ed. Lond. 1853. 
—Le Neve, Fasti Anglic., ed. by Hardy. New edition, Clarendon press. 1854.—Cotton’s 
Fasti. Ecélesiae Hibernicae.—The Religion of the ancient Britons, from earliest Timés to 


Norman Conquest, by Geo. Smith, 8. 2d ed.° 1854. 


. 


Liber poenitentialis, Theod. (edition.of the Record Commission), Untersuchungen tber 
d. german. Pénitent. Biicher, von K. Hildebrand. Wurz. 1851.—Die Bussordnungen d. 
Abendl. Kirche, v. FP. W. H. Wasserschleben. Halle, 1851 (cf. Gersdorf’s Rep., 1852). ~ 

Caedmons, des Angelsachsen, Biblische Dichtungen, ed..K. W. Bouterwek. Leipsic, 
1851.—A.: Daniels, de Saxonici Speculi Origine, etc., 8, Berol. 1852. 

ZElfric, Remains of, ed. by E’Isle, 1623 ; with a reprint of the “ Testimonie of Antiqui- 
“tie,” sanctioned by Archbishop Parker. 1567. 

Bede. —The ees Historical Society published his. Historia Eccles. et Opera Hist. 


_ Minora, ed. Stevens ; 8.—Works, i in 12. 8. Edited by J. A. Giles. Lond. 1843, ’4.— 


Gites, Life of Bede: storia Eccles. gentis Anglorum, ed. R. Hussey. 1846—His Ec- 
clesiastical History. Transl. by J. A. Giles, 1845; also his Biog. Writings and Letters. 
1845.—Opeta, ed. Stephenson. 1848.—Bede and his Biographers, Dubl. Rev., July, 1854. 
—Bede’s Eccl. Hist. Transl. by/7’. Stapleton, 4. Anto. 1565, aid St. Diiir’s, 1622; from 
Dr. Smith's edition with Notes and Life, 8. Lond. 1723. .—Smith’s edition, fol. Gants 
1722. : 


- 


END OF VOL. Il. — 











oe 
On oe 


“FS Fon 
“ eh 2S 














UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
Los Angeles 
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 


ECD Lo-unt 


-Rediteia 

















vr 


Siege 


i 
FE tf 
Cs 








a Le 
I 


Soa 


yer 


ae : 2 pies 


os 


LEAS 


eS 


Neat 
Sh 


5 


hae 


hex 





